User talk:Jntramey

Help has arrived[edit]

You wanted some help, here I am! How can I help you? You can ask your questions right here, and I will respond.--Commander Keane 04:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited a page, then it was instantly deleted after I saved it. Why is that?

Did you put in the a.k.a. at Desiderius? Because there was an edit from a user who wasn't logged in? Dr Debug (Talk) 04:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Yes, I'm afraid that was me. I had logged in, then hit "back button" to get to the article. I suppose it "logged me out".

Don't worry. Because you wrote it in all capitals somebody probably thought that it was nonsense. I've reformatted it a bit and reapplied your changes. Dr Debug (Talk) 04:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will pay closer attention next time I have something to contribute.

The reason the edit was reverted (=deleted) is because it was not the standard way to add that sort of information to an article. We try to avoid ALL CAPS writing in articles. Also, try to work your new information into that article rather than putting right at the begining.--Commander Keane 04:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you. I think I will really enjoy researching and contributing, however, this media is a little cumbersome.

Welcome[edit]

Since you haven't been welcomed yet. Let's give you the standard message.

Welcome!

Hello, Jntramey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 04:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desiderius[edit]

Lombard barbarians of the eighth century had no surnames. What do you mean by Official Record of the Louvre? What does it record? Desiderius was exiled to Liège, which isn't really near the Louvre. I have never heard him called Remy before in any historical narrative. Genealogies (sadly, often sloppy) are not good sources for information of this kind. Can you give a better source than an obscure genealogy (preferably a respectable piece of historical scholarship which lists its primary sources)? I think your book probably just gave everybody within a certain family line (I don't known how they traced Desiderius descendants) the same modern surname, similar to a recent error I corrected in which Charles Martel's daughter was surnamed Martel. Martel was not a surname, it was an epithet, a nickname. There were no surnames in Desiderius' or Charles' time. Srnec 23:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

barbarian Lombards?[edit]

In the classical sense, this term is misapplied in the case of Desiderio. He was a Christian ruler of a civilized kingdom with established municiple functions and facilities. Perhaps you are refering to the Lombards prior to 700 A.D.?

As to Desiderius bloodline, I do not believe it can be established through Saint Remi. For one, I am not aware of any descendanst of the saint or of any long-reaching genealogy of Desiderius. I have never heard of Gannade or Goismons (though I think Soissons is meant). In any case, what does Remi's ancestry have to do with Desiderius?

Desiderius was a barbarian. That is merely a descriptive term, like barbaric. Barbarous is a axiological term, implying rudeness, backwardness, and violence, among other things. The Lombards, in fact, were more backwards and primitive than most of the Germanic tribes to invade Western and Mediterranean Europe. Most barbarians were Christians: the Lombards were some of the last to convert. By Desiderius' time, the kingdom was indeed highly developed compared to earlier times and all the barbarian kingdoms borrowed systems of government from Rome, but the point above was only that barbarian peoples, unlike the Romans, did not have a complex nomenclature for humans: they simply had names, given names (baptismal names, Christian names). Desiderius, unless he had an epithet (a nickname) of which I am not aware, was simply Desiderius (the Latin form of Daufer, also Dauferius, in modern French Didier and in Italian Desiderio). Srnec 23:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory information[edit]

I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but some of it seems, on the surface, to be terribly flawed. What are your sources for your research?

1. Desiderio's kingdom was in such a state that Charlemagne was impressed with the civil order and organization, and left matters to run as they had been (except for Dider, of course.)

2. Desiderio was heralded as the diplomat of all the Lombards, choosing negotiations as opposed to warfare. Only after grave and serious attacks on his family honor did he take issue with the pope Stephan and his own son-in-law, Charlemagne. Dider even sought conditions favorable to his subjects and troops when negotiating his surrender.

3. Most "barbarians" of that day were Druids, not Christian.

4. Although I personally cannot verify (at this time) Dider's relation to Saint-Remy, it has been verified by members of my extended family in France, from church documents. NOT that I would take my word for it either if I were you, but I consider it an "unproven" assertation with credible sources, at least from my perspective. If you have more qualified references, please share them, as a huge expense traveling over seas, and an inordinate amount of time has been spent by family in this endeavor. I find it interesting that you could so quickly refute their findings.

I think there is a little bit of misunderstanding here. I do not disagree with point one above and never did. He was definitely a diplomat, just see the marriages of his daughters. None of this is contradictory to the term barbarian. Many barbarians were very civilised. Barbarian in this historical sense is a descriptive term for certain people groups, of which the Lombards were one. No, barbarians were not Druids, most were Christians. Look up "barbarian." The Goths, Lombards, Franks, Vandals, Suevi, Bavarii, Alemanni, and most other Germanic tribes had converted to Christianity by the end of the sixth century. Druidism was rare by the eighth century.

Sources I have used to cultivate my knowledge of Desiderius include Charles Oman's The Dark Ages and Murray and Goffart's After Rome's Fall (see the article Gerperga), the latter of which includes two detailed, well-researched, modern essays that contain the best, most up-to-date information of Desiderius that I have ever come across in a lot of historical readings.

As to your final point. I cannot provide "sources" which say that Desiderius was not called Remy, I can only point out that I have never seen any such source that even connects him to any family called Remy. The burden of proof is on you here, since it is your information which should be available in sources. I think that the issue here is one of scholarly historiography versus amateur genealogy. Dider is not a French first name as far as I know, that would be Didier, no? You need to specify the type of church documents you refer to, as Desiderius did not have any offspring in France and was not the descendant of Frenchman, as far as I have ever heard. I cannot refute your findings, but I do not have to. That's because it is impossible. The burden of proof here rests on you. I will end by reiterated what I've said twice before: there were no surnames like Remy in the eighth century. Srnec 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hospitality[edit]

Thank you for the sources, and your assistance. I understood from the beginning that any burden of proof would be on whomever is "second" to edit; history is, after all, written by the victors. While I disagree with some of your conclusions, I respect you as a fellow historian (I am not, unfortunately, a genealogist) my specialty is in American History with a emphasis on the Civil War and Reconstruction, & U.S. Naval History 1812-1980. Until I can put my hands on the documents in question, and provide evidience to support my claims, I will, of course, have to ceed the point. But, "I'll be back", with what I need...eventually. Thanks for the discussion.

Just to clarify: the burden of proof is on you because a denial of fact cannot be evidenced or sourced, only the fact itself can be. Thus, while I can only source "silence," that is, I can only tell you what my sources do not say, you can actually give sources for your information (if they exist). The disagreement here is on whether or not the source you have so-far cited is good enough to outweigh so much other scholars' silence and warrant a place in an encyclopaedic article. Anyways, civil discussion and argumentation is always good. I'm glad you'll be back, hasta la vista. Srnec 05:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]