Talk:Battle of Roncevaux Pass
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some criticisms to be confirmed by someone wiser or more erudite:
1. "This battle was the last of Charlemagne's first campaign to capture Spain (...)".
For what I know, it was the only campaign of Charlemagne to Spain. He had been promised the surrender of Barcelona and Saragossa but the leader of this last city was deposed before the Franks could reach it. This frustrated further consolidation of the "Marca Hispanica".
2. "Over the years, this minor battle (...)".
It was no minor battle, though it was indeed an ambush and a guerrilla type battle. The rear-guard was formed by the elite of the Frankish knights and they were all killed causing much "human resources" damage and demoralization to Charlemagne. It was also one of the few defeats of the Emperor, if not the only serious one, hampering also his ambitions south of the Pyrenees, as shown he could only count with the eastern passages as safe ones.
Contents |
[edit] Roland was commander?
IIRC, the only historical mention of Roland is the "Vita Caroli Magni" by Einhard, and here the only note is, that during a skirmish in the Pyrenees, "many a paladine of Charlesmagne were killed, among them one Roland of Brittany".
- Depends what is meant by "historical"...
- --Kessler 18:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well... ;-) As opposed to "legend/poetry/hearsay". (Sorry for not signing my earlier entries, btw.) --Syzygy 06:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- That's the question, then: whether the article "Battle of Roncevaux Pass" is to be about the history of the thing -- about which we know very little -- or about the "legend/poetry/hearsay", of which we have a great deal, and which unarguably I think is far more significant for our "history", in fact. No one ever has questioned that the battle was a minor historical footnote, not even Einhard, but its "legend" became one of Western Civ's major historical forces.
-
-
-
- --Kessler 18:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Einhard's Life was written in retirement, c. 830-833, some time after the events he describes. It is short, 5-6 pages containing 33 sections, really just a memo -- to give you some idea, you can page down through the whole thing online in Latin at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/CLASSICS/ein.html -- memories / justifications of an old man, remembering the good old / bad old days & kindasorta brushing up a few things maybe, like Ptolemy "remembering" his exploits with Alexander.
- The Vita Caroli did become a best-seller quickly -- there are many medieval references to it -- and it probably is a source for much of the history and literature about Charlemagne which followed thereafter, but it wouldn't have been "history" by today's standards. Not that we're that much better at this today...
- --Kessler 18:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Is there any evidence Roland really was the commander of the unit?
- All Einhard says in the original Latin is, "Anshelmus comes palatii et Hruodlandus Brittannici limitis praefectus cum aliis conpluribus interficiuntur", which translates roughly as you have it above: although it does mention two names -- the fact that Einhard mentions only two of the many deaths by name, "Anshelmus" and "Hruodlandus Brittannici" (your Roland of Brittany) may indicate special status for those two, at least.
- --Kessler 18:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Hum. "In the plane crash, a lot of people died, including them Buddy Holly" doesn't really indicate that he was the pilot of the plane, right? ;-) I mean, Roland certainly was a household name at that time, but taking him down as commander at Ronc' is speculation at best, imho. (I was also a bit dismayed that the Wiki page about the "historical Roland" points out he was Charlesmagne's nephew -- AFAIK, that's from the legend, and not corroborated by historical fact.) --Syzygy 06:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- True. Einhard may have been remembering, in old age, only the names of people he had known personally. Or known of: the incident took place pre-800, I believe (? -- I see Wikipedia says "778" but I think the monument at Roncesvalles reads "789", so I wonder about that dating), and Einhard was writing well over 30 years later.
-
-
-
- And as to Roland's having been the king's nephew, well, again it's "history" versus "legend" -- it does seem to me that in either case the source ought to be quoted: makes the article a lot more interesting, and useful, to anyone interested in either -- anyone know the source for the "king's nephew" story?
-
-
-
- --Kessler 18:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-
Likewise, I thought Roland died at the end of the Chanson, and Charlesmagne could only retrieve his body.
Can anybody clarify?
- Correct: the full Chanson in Old French, they say, c. 1090 they also say -- that must be (it is, see below) the version which they have at Oxford, Oxford Bodleian MS Digby 23 -- is online nicely at, http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/gallica/Chronologie/11siecle/Roland/rol_ch00.html -- it says basically that Charlemagne got there too late, verse 3800 : "Morz est Rollant, ja mais nel revereiz", "Roland is dead, I'll never see him again".
- --Kessler 18:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- That's pretty much what I recalled. Charlesmagne pursued the Sarazens and tried to take Saragossa (?), but had to return because he couldn't cross one river or something, right? --Syzygy 06:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- And he "burned Pamplona"... which he didn't...
-
-
-
- --Kessler 18:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- You now can see and even read (!) Bodleian MS Digby 23 itself online at, http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=bodleian&manuscript=msdigby23b -- but it is attributed there to "12th century, ? 2nd quarter", so I'm not sure where that other site gets its "c. 1090" attribution. I'd trust the Bodleian on the dating, and theirs is the oldest existing copy, I believe.
- OTOH the Bodley also says that the language is "Anglo-Norman": I'm not sure how that differs from the "Old French" per the label at the other site, which is at Augsburg -- they mention "gallica" in their URL but I don't see a Chanson de Roland at the BnF's Gallica -- so I'll have to leave that to the paleographers and maybe the politicians here to figure out.
- The line is in (Pt. 2) on f68v, at Oxford: "m orz eft Rolt ia mais nel reuereiz" -- looks pretty "French", to me, altho maybe that's just the "Norman" part in "Anglo-Norman"? -- kind of fun, reading it "in the original"...
- --Kessler 23:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- That "Old French" vs. "Anglo-Norman" question: "Since Old French did not consist of a single standard, competing administrative varieties were propagated by the provincial courts and chanceries... the Norman language of Normandy, whose principal cities were Caen and Rouen. The Norman conquest of England brought many Norman speaking aristocrats into the British Isles. Most of the older French words in the English language reflect the influence of this variety of Oïl language which became a conduit for the introduction into the Anglo-Norman realm, as did Anglo-Norman control of Anjou and Gascony and other continental possessions. The Anglo-Norman language reflected a shared culture on both sides of the English Channel. Ultimately, this language declined and fell, becoming Law French, a jargon spoken by lawyers, which was used in English law until the reign of Charles II." -- http://www.answers.com/topic/old-french -- there, more than you ever wanted to know... so the Digby ms. is Old French...
- --Kessler 00:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Why is there a link to Nafarroa Beherea? Orreaga is in Nafarroa Garaia. Guille 01:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some things are clear.
Sadly I'll need some days to gather more documentation on this issue and rewrite the article for better. There's much documentation in the battle, mostly from Frankish sources but also some Muslim ones. But, as I say, I need to get first to my father's home to get the right books.
But so far all I can find online is coincident with what I already knew: 1. Date: August 15 778 (at dusk). This is very precise. 2. Charlemagne was in campaign to conquer Zaragoza, whose wali (governor) had betrayed the Muslims (as well as that of Barcelona, not sure if in the same date). The treason was discovered and a new wali appointed. The Franks could only watch the walls of the city and turn back. 3. On his way back, some Muslims (apparently relatives of the traitor governor) atacked the baggage section of the column and rescued the former wali. 4. In Pamplona, Charles decided to pull down the walls of the city. The reason is not clear: either he feared that Muslims could conquer it or he doubted of the loyalty of the Basques. 5. When the column crossed the Pyrenees, presumably at Orreaga (Roncevaux), but this is it's not totally clear, the rearguard, made up of a large number of knights, was ambushed and annihilated. The bulk of the army could only turn back next morning and find the corpses and (I guess) a good number of vultures (aboundant in the Pyrenees).
Other thing that I must check but seem quite clear are: Roland was a relative of Charlemagne, not sure if an in-law or nephew or what exactly and he was likely in command because of his rank. This was a military expediion, not a pleasure voyage.
Legends: we have indeed the Chanson de Roland and we have some Basque myths, maybe influenced by French legends, that assimilate Roland to Sanson and other mythical criatures such as Jentilak, attributing to him some megaliths.
I'll see what can do to improve this article. --Sugaar 19:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revamped
I've revamped the article partly from memory. I'm going in the next hours to get some books to improve and source it. --Sugaar 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Revamped and documented now. I think it's much better now. Nevertheless, check please for errors. --Sugaar 09:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confusing
This article is confusing. Were the Basques Muslim? Why did they fight against the Franks? --AW 20:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Basques were not muslims. Basques were basques, a nation apart from muslims and franks. King Karl became to Zaragoza from Paderborn the 777 year and in 778 year he lost and found thes so called spanish marc. Anyway, the army of king karl when was retiring turned home through the two sides they took to go to Zaragoza. The both sides of the Pirinees. By the side of the basques King Karl, by the side of the city of Tudela, appearently, a coupple of relatives and friends of the former leader of the Zaragoza muslims, the one who went to the court of king karl in 777, gived him freedom through a little combat. King karl was furious and went north entering in the land of the basques and entering their capital, their historical main city: Pamplona (Iruña, in basque, literally, "The city"). So King karl, thinking all was the same, muslims, the ones who "stole" him the muslim in tudela, basques... finally destroyed Pamplona. When it was known by the basques the basques leaders recruited an army to revenge that attack to their city. So in the pass of Orreaga in basque, Roncesvalles in spanish, a hugh and large group of basques were waitin the moment to attack the army of king karl when they were retiring home. That is the real reason to attack the franks. Because of historically, between the former godic kingdom in south ank frank kingdom in north, since the fall of the roman empire, there was always a land of basques, although never was structurated by a king with its court. But. When by any circumstance, like the attack of king karl, they had the cappability to join together in a few days and attack. And disolve themselves through the valleys. So, after the defeat, King karl could not take revenge from basques. Because there were no army to defeat. That victory of the basques in that place made King karl a little bit more angry in his carachter the rest of his life. And we know the victory of basques because it was important. But, finally, one little appointment. Basques never wrote this history. Basques usually never write their own history by written letter. The tradition of basques, usually, is oral tradition. That's the reason to see all europe talking about the battle of Roncesvaux pass without the historiography of basques. But, its important to know the truth. Not the CHanson of roland, wich is completely false, like all that good books of cavallery. History and not tricks, please.
Hanskarlperez
[edit] Does not read well
This is written quite poorly, and needs to be considerably revamped. As it stands, it is like stream of consciousness, and more effort should be made to present the information in a clear and methodical manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.85.193 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)