Tomb of King Alfred the Great's grand-daughter found in Germany

Boy, that family tree is a killer! 64 pages!!

Any estimation of how tall Charlemagne was? And perhaps he was dubbed "Charles the tall one"? If you say "big one" it tends to bring to mind other things

Originally posted by Maegnas

Any estimation of how tall Charlemagne was? And perhaps he was dubbed "Charles the tall one"? If you say "big one" it tends to bring to mind other things

I bet it does... and that's probably WHY they called him like that, the sycophants!

(Just kidding. :-)
But it is true that they could have used a more height-specific term, and they didn't - just the usual folk term. Nothing unusual about that, of course.)

As I was saying, the usual estimation is around 190 cms - some say even taller (193 cms is one estimate I remember), others say about 185 cms.

Be it as it may, he WAS tall, even by today's standards.








[edit on 21-1-2010 by Vanitas]

Indeed! Given the "diet" of the era (we ARE talking 11 centuries ago) and general life conditions, I'd say even if he was a "mere" 1.80m he would look "gigantic" to most people. not that there weren't any tall people at all, far from it, they just weren't that many.

I have seen estimates about Edward I of England (the one nicknamed "Longshanks") that he was "above 6ft tall" (above 1.84m), if Charlemagne was ~1.90m he rightfully was named "magne"

Originally posted by Maegnas
Indeed! Given the "diet" of the era (we ARE talking 11 centuries ago) and general life conditions, I'd say even if he was a "mere" 1.80m he would look "gigantic" to most people. not that there weren't any tall people at all, far from it, they just weren't that many.

That is true.
But, see, this is precisely what I find so interesting (although I admit I could be reading- or rather un-reading - into the text): having read a few biographies and hagiographies, etc. of the time, I would have expected Charlie's biographer to call him something like "gigantic" - and yet, he didn't. As far as I can remember, he was quite nonchalant about it.
And so, my impression was that PERHAPS it wasn't all that uncommon.

And your example - I didn't know that, thanks! - seems to confirm that.
(Just that perhaps it wasn't all THAT uncommon, speaking from today's biased point of view, I mean - not that there were very many people like that.)

Anyway, It's SO refreshing to see people from the stereotypically monolithic "Middle Ages" (1000 years - think about it!) being discussed as actual... well, people.

We should do this more often.

Here's an interesting article about the height of people throughout the ages:

researchnews.osu.edu...

"Men living during the early Middle Ages (the ninth to 11th centuries) were several centimeters taller than men who lived hundreds of years later, on the eve of the Industrial Revolution," said Richard Steckel, a professor of economics at Ohio State University and the author of a new study that looks at changes in average heights during the last millennium.

"Height is an indicator of overall health and economic well-being, and learning that people were so well-off 1,000 to 1,200 years ago was surprising," he said.

Steckel analyzed height data from thousands of skeletons excavated from burial sites in northern Europe and dating from the ninth to the 19th centuries. Average height declined slightly during the 12th through 16th centuries, and hit an all-time low during the 17th and 18th centuries.

Northern European men had lost an average 2.5 inches of height by the 1700s, a loss that was not fully recovered until the first half of the 20th century.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by berenike]

There is a fascinating documentary series called "Medieval Lives", made by BBC and hosted by Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame), you can read about it here. I found it through isohunt.com as a torrent file and downloaded it, very informative about the Middle Ages, turned many stereotypical views upside down AND lots of fun watching it. The search result for the parts of it as torrents are here. It is sure one very good download (not sure if it is offered as a DVD-pack outside the UK, it is not offered in my country and that's why I opted for the download).

Turns out the Middle ages were not that Dark after all

reply to post by berenike


If I were a moderator, I would give you an "applause" for the educational value of this post alone.

Stereotypes are not only trite, hence boring, hence no use to anyone, but they are also potentially dangerous. Such is the nature of un-truth.
But that's yarn for another thread...






[edit on 22-1-2010 by Vanitas]

Originally posted by Maegnas

Turns out the Middle ages were not that Dark after all

Well said.
Just look at their legacy, if nothing else.
But then, that is precisely the problem: a very selective viewpoint - inherited from much later, notoriously biased eras, to boot.

It never ceases to amaze me how attached people - and that includes even many teachers - are to stereotypes.
It must be that they are easier to process...

What a fantastic and well written thread Berenike!! It's going to take me a while to get through all the data you've managed to pull together. Very educational, maybe you should be a history teacher!!

reply to post by Kurokage


Merci, mon brave

I hadn't realized you were so interested in history.

Here is a little snippet just for you:

www.bbc.co.uk...

And here is a map of England at the time of King Alfred:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b756ff87c356.gif[/atsimg]

Here is some background as to what was going on in the country at about the time of Alfred and his descendants (small sample from a very interesting piece:

www.the-orb.net...

Wessex expanded significantly in the time of King Alfred's children. Aethelflaed, Alfred's daughter and the wife of the Mercian ealdorman, turned out to be as important as Edward.

Almost as important, too, was their cousin Aethelwold, because he nearly upset the whole applecart. Aethelwold was the son of Alfred's brother and predecessor Aethelred. Aethelwold had been excluded from politics. Now that his uncle Alfred was dead, Aethelwold tried a coup d'etat to push his cousin Edward aside. He seized a royal manor, thus defying the new king.

Edward promptly called up his levies and surrounded the hall where Aethelwold and the men who had sworn allegiance to him. Aethelwold refused to come out, saying he would live or die there in true heroic fashion. Then, in a scene out of satire instead of epic poetry, he sneaked out in the middle of the night and made his escape. Even in the heroic age, some people thought that discretion was the better part of valor.

Aethelwold ran off to Northumbria, presumably to the kingdom of York, and began to look for Viking allies. Indeed, over the next few years Aethelwold acted just the way we expect Vikings to act, raiding parts of Wessex and Mercia, until he was killed in 903.

And remember - I'll be asking questions later

[edit on 9-2-2010 by berenike]

reply to post by Maegnas


Thank you so much for this. It has been a joy watching with my family.

reply to post by berenike


Hallo I am new here, and wanted to say I think the Edith that is found is in my family tree in generation 35. I am very pleased about this find!

Generation 35

35.35554620950 Otto I the Great of Germany born 23-Nov-912, d. 7-May-973 Memleben
X 929
35.35554620951 Edith of Wessex born about 915, parents Edward I the elder of England x Aelfleda of Wiltshire

reply to post by InaSZ


Hello, welcome to ATS - it's a special thing to have a member of Edith's family contributing to the thread.

I hope you've found the information here interesting and if you can root out any dark family secrets, feel free to share with us Really, just joking.

I hope you enjoy ATS - it's been great fun for me over the last couple of years.