![]() | William the Carpenter has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Okay,
I started this article with sources and notes. I am not sure how I messed up the reference notes. I hope I used the correct format. I know there will be cleanup following! ANY help appreciated for this beginner!
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the Galdemar Carpenal references. Many of the references are direct copy and paste with where they came from. As a start, the reference notes are awkward. Being inline would be better. But, I agree they need to be reduced and cleaned up. I have a tendency of being verbose because I do not want to miss things. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to look this over to see if I can edit it into a proper article, but I'm not sure I can do that with the current text. To be honest I think the best solution would be to junk the entire thing and start over. Adam Bishop ( talk) 02:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.terra.es/personal4/mosqueado/christian%20leaders.htm#Baldwin%20of%20Boulogne But, do not confuse him with other Willam de Meluns like ... http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/lifemann/tournmt/froisisa.html I'll watch and see how you redo it. I am curious. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I added some cites, where cites needed. They can be cleaned up later. I also redid the info box. I'm not sure if it is the best one or not.
In the line where you reference his nickname "carpenter", you gave no reason for it other than he created a slaughter like a "butcher" on the battlefield. If he was a butcher - in the context of the time - then he would have been called William the butcher. But, he was not called as such. The nickname came from the association with the carpenter trade. From the view point of his peers, his mighty (aka weighty) strokes were precise and neat - something worth commenting on - like a carpenter shaping wood. Gibbons states, "... William, viscount of Melun, surnamed the Carpenter, from the weighty strokes of his axe ..."
Also interesting is the sentence, 'William then "spent the whole of the night...in Bohemond's tent, lying on the ground like a piece of rubbish." '
In all the material I have found, none have him laying on the ground "like a piece of rubbish." He lay "like an evil thing" which could have many meanings, but not as inanimate trash.
'Like an evil thing' is probably a reference to the "evil thing" as in the Bible. For example; Psalm 141:4 "Incline not my heart to any evil thing ..." Or, Matthew 12:35 "A good man out of good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things ..." Or better yet, Ecclesiastes 8:5 "He who keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing ..." this because the crusade was a commandment and his desertion caused him to lay "like an evil thing." This matches the concept of the time in which it was written and is supported by a later phrase that he (and others) should be blotted out from the Book of Life.
In the original Gesta version, "Then William lay all that night, like an evil thing, in the tent of Bohemund. On the next day at early dawn he came shamefacedly and stood in the presence of Bohemund, who, addressing him, said, "O, the misfortune and infamy of all France, the disgrace and villainy of Gaul! O, most evil of all whom the earth endures! Why did you so vilely flee? Was it, perchance, for the reason that you wished to betray these knights and the host of Christ, as you betrayed others in Hispania?" He was entirely silent and no speech proceeded from his mouth, almost all those of Frankish race gathered together and humbly asked Lord Bohemund not to let anything worse befall him." The reference is " Gesta Francorum" Circa 1100-1101, an anonymous writer connected with Bohemund of Antioch wrote the Gesta francorum et aliorum Hierosolymytanorum (The Deeds of the Franks) This text was used by the later writers as a source. See Also: Rosalind M. Hill, ed. and trans., Gesta francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum: The Deeds of the Franks (London: 1962), [Latin text with English translation.]. The Sufferings of the Crusaders - 3. The Gesta Version.
So based on the above, I question the accuracy of the translation ("like a piece of rubbish") in the book you cited and use in the article when others can be used.
The following two lines from the current article refer to a possible alias or alternate of his WTC. - Godfrey of Bouillon granted William lands on 17 July 1100, the day before Godfrey died. The land was contested by Bohemund.[citation needed] - William eventually settled in the Principality of Antioch as a vassal of Bohemond.[10]
These refer to "Galdemar" and "Galdemar Carpenal" and are questionable without an understanding of the name variants and confusions of similar names which were removed earlier. These two lines should probably be removed.
Thoughts or comments?
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 15:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gesta-cde.html#antioch2
My cites on the Melun line were deleted during the chop chop but the basics are from: Grand Dictionaire Universel DU XIX Siecle Paris 1873 Tome 10 (page 1488) & the 1838 version (pages 1399-1400. du Bouchet, History of Courtenay, pp 194ff. Cabinee de M. de Clairembault. De Pairs De France by Joyeuse - Genealgie de la Maison de Melun. Pg 221+. The Viscounts and Counts of Melun are listed in ES (Detlev Schwennicke, "Europäische Stammtafeln," Neue Folge) Volume VII, Tafels 55 & 56. There are some more but they go into orginal sources. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
"... ^97 Among the chiefs, three heroes may be found without fear or reproach: Godfrey of Bouillon was supported by his magnanimous piety; Bohemond by ambition and interest; and Tancred declared, in the true spirit of chivalry, that as long as he was at the head of forty knights, he would never relinquish the enterprise of Palestine. But the count of Tholouse and Provence was suspected of a voluntary indisposition; the duke of Normandy was recalled from the sea-shore by the censures of the church: Hugh the Great, though he led the vanguard of the battle, embraced an ambiguous opportunity of returning to France and Stephen, count of Chartres, basely deserted the standard which he bore, and the council in which he presided. The soldiers were discouraged by the flight of William, viscount of Melun, surnamed the Carpenter, from the weighty strokes of his axe; and the saints were scandalized by the fall of Peter the Hermit, who, after arming Europe against Asia, attempted to escape from the penance of a necessary fast. Of the multitude of recreant warriors, the names (says an historian) are blotted from the book of life; ..."
"Guillaume I. du nom, viscount de Melun, fut surnomme Charpentier, a cause u'il ne se trouvoit point d'armes qui pussent resister a l'effort de ses oups. "La pesanteur des siennes le faisoit apprehender dans les combats." Guillaume I., of name, Viscount of Melun, was named, Carpenter, because no weapon (opponent's weapons that is) could be found that could resist the power his strikes. The heaviness of his (weapons) resulted in him being feared in combats". Carpenters must of, at the time, been among the most "well build" people... "
Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th Ed. carpenter · n. a person who makes wooden objects and structures. · v. make by shaping wood. – DERIVATIVES carpentry n. – ORIGIN ME: from Anglo-Norman Fr., from OFr. carpentier, charpentier, from late L. carpentarius (artifex) ‘carriage(-maker)’, from carpentum ‘wagon’, of Gaulish origin.
artifice /"A;tIfIs/ (name variant: artifex) · n. clever devices or expedients, especially to trick or deceive others. – ORIGIN ME (in the sense ‘workmanship’): from OFr., from L. artificium, based on ars ‘art’ + facere ‘make’.
I did a slight reorganization of the article and added conflicting translation of WTC "evil thing" or "rubbish." In reference, I use the older translation of the subject of the paragraph for clairification.
I redid the line where the new 2006 work conflicts with Gibbons and others regarding the nickname and providing references.
I took out the following line due to comments above. "Godfrey of Bouillon granted William lands on 17 July 1100, the day before Godfrey died. The land was contested by Bohemund. citation needed"
I put a qualifier on the last line in the article where it may or may not refer to WTC.
In general, while the references (mine) need to be cleaned up and cited in the same manner as Adam Bishop's, the compromise I give may work. Thoughts or Comments? John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 23:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Both have "Anselme." Do you think they are the same person? Maybe an older version?
"Anselme de Sainte-Marie (augustin dechaussee) - Histoire Genealogique et Chronologique de la Maison Royale de France, des Pairs, Grands Officiers de la Couronne et de la Maison du Roy et des anciens Barons du Royaume. (Reproduction de l'ed. de Paris: chez Estienne Loyson, 1674: Num. BNF de l'ed. de Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale de France, 1987. 1 microfilm Reproduction de l'ed. de Paris: Compagnie des libraires associez, 1730, 1730)"
Then follows my handwritten reference to "de Pairs de France - Genealogie de la Maison de Melun" which may have been a subsection note. I have some other comments to microfilm pages, volumnes and contents on the old photostat copy which is getting hard to read. There was a note regarding the duchy of Joyeuse related and apparently I put them together poorly in my wierd shorthand. But, now you know why I tried to shorten the reference. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 09:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Adam,
You are finding things that I have not been able to find, nor others like "James A. Brundage" He wrote me the following in 2000; "As for William the Carpenter from Melun who participated in the first crusade, very little is known about him because scarcely any evidence survives. ... To the best of my knowledge, Riley-Smith and Bull have exhausted every scrap of evidence about the man that is known to survive. And at that, we know more about him than we do about most of the participants in the first crusade. Sorry I can't give you any more information, but I don't think there's any more information to give." (James A. Brundage - History & Law University of Kansas - Member of the Medieval History Ring.)
The same for MGF forum ( http://genforum.genealogy.com/medieval/messages/ ) I frequented many years ago. It is nice seeing more material becoming available. I am impressed with the additional information. While we may disagree here and there, the article is getting more interesting!
I will be off line for about a week, then I will work on your requests above. Regards! John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 00:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Aha, found the genealogy, it's in volume 5! Adam Bishop ( talk) 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Another question: where do the dates of his birth and death come from? I see that the German article says he was at the Battle of Hastings, but the book they reference doesn't actually say that; I'm wondering if he is being confused with someone else who would have been old enough to be at Hastings.
Also, I found a book called "Histoire de Melun" by Gabriel Leroy, from 1887. It wasn't very useful...it has a paragraph or so about the viscounts, but no list or names or dates or anything. Oh well. It could be useful for the Melun article, probably. Adam Bishop ( talk) 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I admit I am shocked that such an obscure, minor person is still attracting so much attention 900 years later. I would just like to point out a few things that might not already have been made clear:
First, the connection to Ganelon is an interesting piece of trivia, and I did not think that that bit would be especially controversial. I got it from John France's VIctory in the East, who got it from Desfourneaux, who got it from Boissonet, although Desfourneaux noted that the original connection was made by medieval jongleurs. Now, obviously, William is not the same person as Ganelon, if a person named Ganelon existed in the eighth century; but that is not what is being said here. The point is that the character of Ganelon in the Chanson de Roland (a fictional character in a work of fiction) may have been based on William's actions in Spain, assuming that the Chanson was written after the expedition to Spain or after the First Crusade, which it may or may not have been. Our anonymous friend apparently thinks this implies William is Ganelon, but I do not see how he can reach that conclusion unless he is being purposefully obtuse.
Secondly, the idea that anyone can trace their ancestry back to William, especially anyone whose last name is Carpenter, is extremely flawed. I don't know about genetics and all that, and I realize a lot of genetic studies are being made by genealogists, but I don't think that stuff even matters here; I don't wish to denigrate the entire field of genealogy but if amateurs who happen to be interested in their own family history are conducting genetic studies in the same haphazard manner that they are conducting historical studies, I'm not sure I would trust the results anyway. The main point about William here is that his last name wasn't Carpenter. Of course, many last names, including Carpenter, come from nicknames, and surely many people whose last name is currently Carpenter had an ancestor who was a carpenter or who was called that for some reason. Does that include William? I doubt it, because there is no evidence that this was considered a surname, or that he passed the name on to his descendants. In fact, there is no evidence that he had any descendants.
Genealogists have apparently been using Pere Anselme's massive lists of French nobles, and that is all well and good, except that the work is 300 years old. History is dedicated to studying the original sources and the original languages for a better understanding of the past, and that wouldn't happen if we stopped with Anselme, or, for example, Edward Gibbon, who is apparently responsible for the idea that William carried an axe. Anselme and Gibbon are classic and important, but they are only human, they can be wrong (it is easy to see why Gibbon was confused but I suppose it would be "original research" to say so in the article...oh well). In Anselme's case, Duchalais published an article about the genealogy of the viscounts of Melun that showed why Anselme was wrong in certain cases. He showed that we don't know who William's father was, and we don't know if he had any children who succeeded him; presumably he was related to the other viscounts, but we don't know how specifically. In any case, the male line changed dynasties in the twelfth century when Viscount Adam married the daughter of his predecessor, so it doesn't even matter if William had descendants or not. (I can see how genetic studies might prove you are related to some other living Carpenter, but not how they would link you to a long-dead person, unless you are also using historical material - but in this case that just doesn't work.)
Lastly, I want to say that if you are offended by something that someone did 900 years ago, you may want to rethink your priorities. William was an interesting man who did interesting things, but those things have nothing to do with you. Take him as he is, and you will benefit from knowing a little bit more about the First Crusade than you did before.
(By the way, apparently there will be a new academic article about William published in the near future, by historian Michael Bardot. I don't know what the content of his article is exactly, but hopefully it will help everyone understand William better. I will certainly let everyone know when and where it is published.) Adam Bishop ( talk) 02:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed something else that I'd like to bring to the attention of the talk page. The "Jerusalem Nobility" page of Medieval Lands project at the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy ( http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/JERUSALEM%20NOBILITY.htm) lists William and Gualdemar Carpanel as the same person. We've talked about this above, but I wanted to expand on it. Their sources are William of Tyre and Du Cange, who mention only Gualdemar; the charter in Rohricht which is given in our article, which mentions the Carpenter; and Albert of Aix, who mentions both. I see that the version of Albert they are using is Guizot's French translation from 1824; this predates the Latin edition in the Recueil des historiens des croisades from the 1840s (or 1850s? Later than 1824 anyway), so Guizot's source for the Latin was the text published by Bongars in 1611. After checking all these, it is apparent that the mistake originates with Guizot, who translates "Guillelmus Carpentarius" in Bongars' text as "Gualdemar Carpenel" every time. If I had to speculate about why he did this, it is either a simple mistake because he didn't realize William the Carpenter was a different person, or perhaps he also had access to the original Latin manuscripts, and was comparing them to the Bongars edition. In the latter case, it's possible that both Gualdemar and William's names were abbreviated in a similar way (like "Glm Carp" or something with various lines and squiggles), and he read them as the same name, although as far as I am aware Guizot's version is just a straight translation of Bongars, so I'm not sure how likely that is. In any case, the newest edition of Albert, by Susan Edgington with both the Latin and the English, distinguishes between William and Gualdemar just as Bongars did (and as the RHC version also does). I can't really mention any of this in the article because it's the forbidden "original research", but I wanted to point out why Medieval Lands is an unreliable source in this case (and, sadly, probably in many other cases). By the way, if you so desire, you can check Guizot, Rohricht, Du Cange, Bongars, the RHC, and even some of Edgington online, which is pretty handy. Adam Bishop ( talk) 22:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, another thing about the battle axe - I see that "hâche d'armes" appears all the time in French books, and this seems to come from Michaud; the earliest French historian of the crusades that I know of, Louis Maimbourg, says the nickname came from either his skill at building siege engines, or because he cut down his enemies, as it was said at the time (referring to Guibet, presumably). Michaud relied a lot on Maimbourg, but since Maimbourg says nothing about a battle axe, I'd assume that Michaud got it from Gibbon. But again, it's already bad enough that I said Gibbon misunderstood Guibert, so I won't put this in the article either. Adam Bishop ( talk) 06:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me know if it is worth bywording any of the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9C97:5D01:FD12:B91A:E962:10BA ( talk) 14:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | William the Carpenter has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Okay,
I started this article with sources and notes. I am not sure how I messed up the reference notes. I hope I used the correct format. I know there will be cleanup following! ANY help appreciated for this beginner!
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the Galdemar Carpenal references. Many of the references are direct copy and paste with where they came from. As a start, the reference notes are awkward. Being inline would be better. But, I agree they need to be reduced and cleaned up. I have a tendency of being verbose because I do not want to miss things. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to look this over to see if I can edit it into a proper article, but I'm not sure I can do that with the current text. To be honest I think the best solution would be to junk the entire thing and start over. Adam Bishop ( talk) 02:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.terra.es/personal4/mosqueado/christian%20leaders.htm#Baldwin%20of%20Boulogne But, do not confuse him with other Willam de Meluns like ... http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/lifemann/tournmt/froisisa.html I'll watch and see how you redo it. I am curious. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I added some cites, where cites needed. They can be cleaned up later. I also redid the info box. I'm not sure if it is the best one or not.
In the line where you reference his nickname "carpenter", you gave no reason for it other than he created a slaughter like a "butcher" on the battlefield. If he was a butcher - in the context of the time - then he would have been called William the butcher. But, he was not called as such. The nickname came from the association with the carpenter trade. From the view point of his peers, his mighty (aka weighty) strokes were precise and neat - something worth commenting on - like a carpenter shaping wood. Gibbons states, "... William, viscount of Melun, surnamed the Carpenter, from the weighty strokes of his axe ..."
Also interesting is the sentence, 'William then "spent the whole of the night...in Bohemond's tent, lying on the ground like a piece of rubbish." '
In all the material I have found, none have him laying on the ground "like a piece of rubbish." He lay "like an evil thing" which could have many meanings, but not as inanimate trash.
'Like an evil thing' is probably a reference to the "evil thing" as in the Bible. For example; Psalm 141:4 "Incline not my heart to any evil thing ..." Or, Matthew 12:35 "A good man out of good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things ..." Or better yet, Ecclesiastes 8:5 "He who keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing ..." this because the crusade was a commandment and his desertion caused him to lay "like an evil thing." This matches the concept of the time in which it was written and is supported by a later phrase that he (and others) should be blotted out from the Book of Life.
In the original Gesta version, "Then William lay all that night, like an evil thing, in the tent of Bohemund. On the next day at early dawn he came shamefacedly and stood in the presence of Bohemund, who, addressing him, said, "O, the misfortune and infamy of all France, the disgrace and villainy of Gaul! O, most evil of all whom the earth endures! Why did you so vilely flee? Was it, perchance, for the reason that you wished to betray these knights and the host of Christ, as you betrayed others in Hispania?" He was entirely silent and no speech proceeded from his mouth, almost all those of Frankish race gathered together and humbly asked Lord Bohemund not to let anything worse befall him." The reference is " Gesta Francorum" Circa 1100-1101, an anonymous writer connected with Bohemund of Antioch wrote the Gesta francorum et aliorum Hierosolymytanorum (The Deeds of the Franks) This text was used by the later writers as a source. See Also: Rosalind M. Hill, ed. and trans., Gesta francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum: The Deeds of the Franks (London: 1962), [Latin text with English translation.]. The Sufferings of the Crusaders - 3. The Gesta Version.
So based on the above, I question the accuracy of the translation ("like a piece of rubbish") in the book you cited and use in the article when others can be used.
The following two lines from the current article refer to a possible alias or alternate of his WTC. - Godfrey of Bouillon granted William lands on 17 July 1100, the day before Godfrey died. The land was contested by Bohemund.[citation needed] - William eventually settled in the Principality of Antioch as a vassal of Bohemond.[10]
These refer to "Galdemar" and "Galdemar Carpenal" and are questionable without an understanding of the name variants and confusions of similar names which were removed earlier. These two lines should probably be removed.
Thoughts or comments?
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 15:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gesta-cde.html#antioch2
My cites on the Melun line were deleted during the chop chop but the basics are from: Grand Dictionaire Universel DU XIX Siecle Paris 1873 Tome 10 (page 1488) & the 1838 version (pages 1399-1400. du Bouchet, History of Courtenay, pp 194ff. Cabinee de M. de Clairembault. De Pairs De France by Joyeuse - Genealgie de la Maison de Melun. Pg 221+. The Viscounts and Counts of Melun are listed in ES (Detlev Schwennicke, "Europäische Stammtafeln," Neue Folge) Volume VII, Tafels 55 & 56. There are some more but they go into orginal sources. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
"... ^97 Among the chiefs, three heroes may be found without fear or reproach: Godfrey of Bouillon was supported by his magnanimous piety; Bohemond by ambition and interest; and Tancred declared, in the true spirit of chivalry, that as long as he was at the head of forty knights, he would never relinquish the enterprise of Palestine. But the count of Tholouse and Provence was suspected of a voluntary indisposition; the duke of Normandy was recalled from the sea-shore by the censures of the church: Hugh the Great, though he led the vanguard of the battle, embraced an ambiguous opportunity of returning to France and Stephen, count of Chartres, basely deserted the standard which he bore, and the council in which he presided. The soldiers were discouraged by the flight of William, viscount of Melun, surnamed the Carpenter, from the weighty strokes of his axe; and the saints were scandalized by the fall of Peter the Hermit, who, after arming Europe against Asia, attempted to escape from the penance of a necessary fast. Of the multitude of recreant warriors, the names (says an historian) are blotted from the book of life; ..."
"Guillaume I. du nom, viscount de Melun, fut surnomme Charpentier, a cause u'il ne se trouvoit point d'armes qui pussent resister a l'effort de ses oups. "La pesanteur des siennes le faisoit apprehender dans les combats." Guillaume I., of name, Viscount of Melun, was named, Carpenter, because no weapon (opponent's weapons that is) could be found that could resist the power his strikes. The heaviness of his (weapons) resulted in him being feared in combats". Carpenters must of, at the time, been among the most "well build" people... "
Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th Ed. carpenter · n. a person who makes wooden objects and structures. · v. make by shaping wood. – DERIVATIVES carpentry n. – ORIGIN ME: from Anglo-Norman Fr., from OFr. carpentier, charpentier, from late L. carpentarius (artifex) ‘carriage(-maker)’, from carpentum ‘wagon’, of Gaulish origin.
artifice /"A;tIfIs/ (name variant: artifex) · n. clever devices or expedients, especially to trick or deceive others. – ORIGIN ME (in the sense ‘workmanship’): from OFr., from L. artificium, based on ars ‘art’ + facere ‘make’.
I did a slight reorganization of the article and added conflicting translation of WTC "evil thing" or "rubbish." In reference, I use the older translation of the subject of the paragraph for clairification.
I redid the line where the new 2006 work conflicts with Gibbons and others regarding the nickname and providing references.
I took out the following line due to comments above. "Godfrey of Bouillon granted William lands on 17 July 1100, the day before Godfrey died. The land was contested by Bohemund. citation needed"
I put a qualifier on the last line in the article where it may or may not refer to WTC.
In general, while the references (mine) need to be cleaned up and cited in the same manner as Adam Bishop's, the compromise I give may work. Thoughts or Comments? John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 23:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Both have "Anselme." Do you think they are the same person? Maybe an older version?
"Anselme de Sainte-Marie (augustin dechaussee) - Histoire Genealogique et Chronologique de la Maison Royale de France, des Pairs, Grands Officiers de la Couronne et de la Maison du Roy et des anciens Barons du Royaume. (Reproduction de l'ed. de Paris: chez Estienne Loyson, 1674: Num. BNF de l'ed. de Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale de France, 1987. 1 microfilm Reproduction de l'ed. de Paris: Compagnie des libraires associez, 1730, 1730)"
Then follows my handwritten reference to "de Pairs de France - Genealogie de la Maison de Melun" which may have been a subsection note. I have some other comments to microfilm pages, volumnes and contents on the old photostat copy which is getting hard to read. There was a note regarding the duchy of Joyeuse related and apparently I put them together poorly in my wierd shorthand. But, now you know why I tried to shorten the reference. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 09:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Adam,
You are finding things that I have not been able to find, nor others like "James A. Brundage" He wrote me the following in 2000; "As for William the Carpenter from Melun who participated in the first crusade, very little is known about him because scarcely any evidence survives. ... To the best of my knowledge, Riley-Smith and Bull have exhausted every scrap of evidence about the man that is known to survive. And at that, we know more about him than we do about most of the participants in the first crusade. Sorry I can't give you any more information, but I don't think there's any more information to give." (James A. Brundage - History & Law University of Kansas - Member of the Medieval History Ring.)
The same for MGF forum ( http://genforum.genealogy.com/medieval/messages/ ) I frequented many years ago. It is nice seeing more material becoming available. I am impressed with the additional information. While we may disagree here and there, the article is getting more interesting!
I will be off line for about a week, then I will work on your requests above. Regards! John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 ( talk) 00:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Aha, found the genealogy, it's in volume 5! Adam Bishop ( talk) 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Another question: where do the dates of his birth and death come from? I see that the German article says he was at the Battle of Hastings, but the book they reference doesn't actually say that; I'm wondering if he is being confused with someone else who would have been old enough to be at Hastings.
Also, I found a book called "Histoire de Melun" by Gabriel Leroy, from 1887. It wasn't very useful...it has a paragraph or so about the viscounts, but no list or names or dates or anything. Oh well. It could be useful for the Melun article, probably. Adam Bishop ( talk) 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I admit I am shocked that such an obscure, minor person is still attracting so much attention 900 years later. I would just like to point out a few things that might not already have been made clear:
First, the connection to Ganelon is an interesting piece of trivia, and I did not think that that bit would be especially controversial. I got it from John France's VIctory in the East, who got it from Desfourneaux, who got it from Boissonet, although Desfourneaux noted that the original connection was made by medieval jongleurs. Now, obviously, William is not the same person as Ganelon, if a person named Ganelon existed in the eighth century; but that is not what is being said here. The point is that the character of Ganelon in the Chanson de Roland (a fictional character in a work of fiction) may have been based on William's actions in Spain, assuming that the Chanson was written after the expedition to Spain or after the First Crusade, which it may or may not have been. Our anonymous friend apparently thinks this implies William is Ganelon, but I do not see how he can reach that conclusion unless he is being purposefully obtuse.
Secondly, the idea that anyone can trace their ancestry back to William, especially anyone whose last name is Carpenter, is extremely flawed. I don't know about genetics and all that, and I realize a lot of genetic studies are being made by genealogists, but I don't think that stuff even matters here; I don't wish to denigrate the entire field of genealogy but if amateurs who happen to be interested in their own family history are conducting genetic studies in the same haphazard manner that they are conducting historical studies, I'm not sure I would trust the results anyway. The main point about William here is that his last name wasn't Carpenter. Of course, many last names, including Carpenter, come from nicknames, and surely many people whose last name is currently Carpenter had an ancestor who was a carpenter or who was called that for some reason. Does that include William? I doubt it, because there is no evidence that this was considered a surname, or that he passed the name on to his descendants. In fact, there is no evidence that he had any descendants.
Genealogists have apparently been using Pere Anselme's massive lists of French nobles, and that is all well and good, except that the work is 300 years old. History is dedicated to studying the original sources and the original languages for a better understanding of the past, and that wouldn't happen if we stopped with Anselme, or, for example, Edward Gibbon, who is apparently responsible for the idea that William carried an axe. Anselme and Gibbon are classic and important, but they are only human, they can be wrong (it is easy to see why Gibbon was confused but I suppose it would be "original research" to say so in the article...oh well). In Anselme's case, Duchalais published an article about the genealogy of the viscounts of Melun that showed why Anselme was wrong in certain cases. He showed that we don't know who William's father was, and we don't know if he had any children who succeeded him; presumably he was related to the other viscounts, but we don't know how specifically. In any case, the male line changed dynasties in the twelfth century when Viscount Adam married the daughter of his predecessor, so it doesn't even matter if William had descendants or not. (I can see how genetic studies might prove you are related to some other living Carpenter, but not how they would link you to a long-dead person, unless you are also using historical material - but in this case that just doesn't work.)
Lastly, I want to say that if you are offended by something that someone did 900 years ago, you may want to rethink your priorities. William was an interesting man who did interesting things, but those things have nothing to do with you. Take him as he is, and you will benefit from knowing a little bit more about the First Crusade than you did before.
(By the way, apparently there will be a new academic article about William published in the near future, by historian Michael Bardot. I don't know what the content of his article is exactly, but hopefully it will help everyone understand William better. I will certainly let everyone know when and where it is published.) Adam Bishop ( talk) 02:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed something else that I'd like to bring to the attention of the talk page. The "Jerusalem Nobility" page of Medieval Lands project at the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy ( http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/JERUSALEM%20NOBILITY.htm) lists William and Gualdemar Carpanel as the same person. We've talked about this above, but I wanted to expand on it. Their sources are William of Tyre and Du Cange, who mention only Gualdemar; the charter in Rohricht which is given in our article, which mentions the Carpenter; and Albert of Aix, who mentions both. I see that the version of Albert they are using is Guizot's French translation from 1824; this predates the Latin edition in the Recueil des historiens des croisades from the 1840s (or 1850s? Later than 1824 anyway), so Guizot's source for the Latin was the text published by Bongars in 1611. After checking all these, it is apparent that the mistake originates with Guizot, who translates "Guillelmus Carpentarius" in Bongars' text as "Gualdemar Carpenel" every time. If I had to speculate about why he did this, it is either a simple mistake because he didn't realize William the Carpenter was a different person, or perhaps he also had access to the original Latin manuscripts, and was comparing them to the Bongars edition. In the latter case, it's possible that both Gualdemar and William's names were abbreviated in a similar way (like "Glm Carp" or something with various lines and squiggles), and he read them as the same name, although as far as I am aware Guizot's version is just a straight translation of Bongars, so I'm not sure how likely that is. In any case, the newest edition of Albert, by Susan Edgington with both the Latin and the English, distinguishes between William and Gualdemar just as Bongars did (and as the RHC version also does). I can't really mention any of this in the article because it's the forbidden "original research", but I wanted to point out why Medieval Lands is an unreliable source in this case (and, sadly, probably in many other cases). By the way, if you so desire, you can check Guizot, Rohricht, Du Cange, Bongars, the RHC, and even some of Edgington online, which is pretty handy. Adam Bishop ( talk) 22:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, another thing about the battle axe - I see that "hâche d'armes" appears all the time in French books, and this seems to come from Michaud; the earliest French historian of the crusades that I know of, Louis Maimbourg, says the nickname came from either his skill at building siege engines, or because he cut down his enemies, as it was said at the time (referring to Guibet, presumably). Michaud relied a lot on Maimbourg, but since Maimbourg says nothing about a battle axe, I'd assume that Michaud got it from Gibbon. But again, it's already bad enough that I said Gibbon misunderstood Guibert, so I won't put this in the article either. Adam Bishop ( talk) 06:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me know if it is worth bywording any of the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9C97:5D01:FD12:B91A:E962:10BA ( talk) 14:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)