From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Holy Warrior[edit]

While the word is supposed to derive from the latin root palatinus, does anyone know if this word is at all related to the Arabic terms Pulah d'hiin? d'hiin is a common suffix in Arabic which means "of God," and the concept of a "holy warrior" was much more prevalent in the Muslim world than the Christian one. Since the history of the word "paladin" supposedly started in the 15th and 16th century, there's a good possibility it may be an adopted word. Anyone have any idea? Spectheintro 02:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)spectheintroReply[reply]

isnt the paladin supposed to be a warrior of the church?

In Dungeons & Dragons, yes. See Paladin (character class) for more on that specific kind of paladin. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why does this page mention howitzers and character classes? Isn't that was disambiguation pages are for? -- 02:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd really like to see this article fleshed out to explore how this idea of paladins as warriors of God came to be... if there is any interesting origin to it. RobertM525 08:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I've never heard "paladin" referring to a fighter of the church outside of games, so I don't think there's much history there. I'm not sure, but I'd imagine the idea was due to the Song of Roland ' portrayal of the Peers championing everything that is good about France and Christendom against the Saracens, who represent the evils of paganism and foreign oppression. Dungeons and Dragons wanted to keep the idea of a righteous warrior battling evil, but without associating that evil with real-world religions or groups, as a more specific term like "crusader" might; beyond that they probably chose the word because "knight" implies a warrior on horesback, while "paladin" does not.--Cuchullain 22:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Indeed, you are likely right. It's probably a pseudo-historical D&D convention that snowballed out of the RPG world and into all kinds of fantasy things... but mostly just video games. :) RobertM525 07:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I traced the word back to the Salii, who 500BC were paladine, i.e. living on Palatine Hill, based (among lots of sources) on Dahlheim: History of the Roman Principate. They were priests of Mars, so, in the broadest sense, close to warriors. No, it is not of Arab origin, continious sources state it always applied to the people from the palatinus. The "warriors of God" is a 18th century romanticisation, and refers to the medieval interpretation of the Roman palace guard + priest of Mars. There still needs to be an explanation of the historical liability of the twelve Carolingian knights. Flammingo 18:45, 6 October 2006 (CET)

It is entirely possible, and even probable, that the Arabic term was derived from the Latin one, since it was created first. Also, as an interesting historical sidenote, Sala'din is sometimes referred to as Sala'din the PaladinAlexander 21:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Would it be all right to add a note in the literature section on the Middle English word douzepers, which seems basically to have the same meaning as paladin (with my reference to the OED)? It also seems to have gained some currency outside the Matter of France in later Middle English, considering its usage in romances of other Matters (like the Alliterative Morte d'Arthur). Sorry if this is pointless or redundant, I'm kind of new to editing on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highly Sensitive Percy (talkcontribs) 01:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Palitinus is not actually a Latin adjective that does not exactly mean "of the Palatine" it only deems a relation to the hill. Palatinus is meant to work a verb, and of the masculine gender at that (Palatina = femenine, and palatinum = neuter). Palatium is the verb for the Palatine hill, it is a neuter noun, and when given the ending of -i (Palatii) it means "Of the Palatine." though it may be loosely related to the article it is an eye sore to some one who has taken the time to learn Latin. (I used the textbook "our latin heritage" by Lillian M. Hines to make sure that I was correct in my translations.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This error is characteristic of the current low standards of this article. We're trying to sort it out at the bottom of the talk page but so far no progress has been made.--Cúchullain t/c 22:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the Paladin comes from Persian word Pooladin, which means made of Steel, Hence the armor of the ancient Knights, Also Refer to the Oldest Depiction Of Knights at Kermanshah Carving in Iran —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attached to the palace[edit]

Some professor needs to take a look at this article and bring some "cogency" to it. Paladins- palace, attached to the palace. This article is more about the Song of Roland than anything else.

The article is mainly about the Paladins as a syonym for the 12 Peers of France. Perhaps some more info on the word itself could be added. I don't know enough about it, or I'd do it.--Cuchullain 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen it in books on The Roman Empire (47BC-end) and added the information. There you see how the connection to a palace evolved along with the word palace. --FlammingoParliament 16:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Info on the term[edit]

Hello Cuchullain, you deleted the Info you yourself desired. Why did you do so without a comment anywhere? Not even a question of "sources needed"! Not good. The word paladin didnt simply come out of nowhere, you see. FlammingoParliament 13:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Paladin" did evolve from "Palatine", yes, but that's different than saying "Paladin" refers to a "servant of the Emperor of Ancient Rome"; I've never heard it used that way. What I meant above was we should have more discussion of the other dictionary uses, which include "medieval champion", "one of Charlemagne's companions", and "champion of cause", according to Encarta [1] and [2] That said, the etymology of the word is still included, and you did a terrific job with your other edits.--Cúchullain t/c 15:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry for you that you didnt hear that usage before. You might have checked the links within the article before deciding so rashly (reverting ALL). Yes, Microsoft's Encarta is another source for the 1st century comment. How is that a reason to keep the usage in the _science_ of history a secret- it has three meanings, a 2,000 year old, a 1,200 year old and the two "revivals" of the past two cent. Also, you did not remember the two categories. "but "Paladin" does not mean "Servant of the Roman Emperor". Yes, in fact it does, see your own sources and a good dictionary on Ancient History like the "New Pauly". If you can quote a source that states me wrong, write them down here, if not keep the information because it is based on a source, correct and deletion would make this a misinformation. I see you are interested in mediaeval history, and have worked on quite a bit of articles. Charlemagne would be the first to reintroduce an Ancient Roman term to underline his imperial claim, wouldn't you agree? And if one seeks information, it would be wise to deliver rather more aspects than one, unless proven incorrect.--FlammingoParliament 15:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you mean, "my own sources"? The only two I gave don't include your definition. Saying "paladin" evolved from "palatine" is different than saying the two words are interchangeable. I really don't understand your problem, the etymology tracing the word to its Latin root isn't being "kept secret", it is still prominantly included, and we already have an article on Palatini (which could probably use some improvement). You also claim your info is based on a source, do you mean your mention of the New Pauly? What is the passage?--Cúchullain t/c 16:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Palatini could. Or be merged with this one. I mean that the bottom line says Paladin is one of the three def., "see palatine" - and there you'd see "a court official in the late Roman and Byzantine empires". Since in History, people did not have a central archive accessible for everyone, differences like t/d are irrelevant, and the meaning never changed into something completly different between 5th and 8th century. New Pauly is the most concise dictionary on Ancient History. See Palace, Palatin(e), Paladin(e) and compare. ISBN 9004122680. Why is the structure i introduced so bad, that showed the development of the term? Another thing: The number twelve appears conveniently often, would that not be a reason to quote the doubt of historians? And with "secret" i meant that the change of use is necessary to understand what the word meant to people who referred to the Ancient Roman social order. Thus, the article needs a chronological structure (and a merge from the Latin Palatini, since this is English, and most scholars translate the Latin to Paladin(e).) --FlammingoParliament 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flammingo, don't just revert to your preferred version. We have separate pages for the other uses. It's okay to describe the evolution of the word, but this page is not about the Roman palace officials.--Cúchullain t/c 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cuchullain, don't patronize this article. You have to deal with the facts i gave. Besides, when i did, you only reacted after i reverted and rewrote. Bit easy to just revert to YOUR version all the time disrespecting every new information, isnt it.FlammingoParliament 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cúchullain, I would have to say that I also agree this is not an article about the Roman version of this word but the later use of it. IMO, this article should reference where the world evolved from without being an article on both terms. If you feel the word "Paladin" (with that spelling) could equally be applied to what is now in an article entitled Palatini, then have a vote to rename "Palatini" to "Paladin (Roman)". If, OTOH, you think this is a misrepresentation of the term Palatini/Paladin (which it seems it is), then the logical solution is to have the Palatini article talk about the Roman official and the Paladin article talk about what the word means now ("any one of the 12 legendary companions of Charlemagne"). The video game paladin isn't discussed in this article for the same reason the Roman official shouldn't be. RobertM525 19:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'd also like to point out I have no problem with discussing how the word evolved, as I've stated above, but the main focus should be on what the word means today. That is the 12 peers, medieval champion, etc.--Cúchullain t/c 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the Roman. There you go. Now you can change (NOT DELETE) the article. FlammingoParliament 00:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flammingo, this is getting old. I've tried to write a new intro to incorporate your info as best I can. If you would read it and explain whatever might be wrong with it here, rather than just reverting, it would be appreciated.--Cúchullain t/c 17:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to , but Catholic priests seem to have too much time keeping it their way...:-)) also, how do you see

A paladin (also spelled palatine, paladine) is in Ancient Rome a servant or official of the Emperor, in the Middle Ages a noble close to the king, or an alternative title to a count palatine, or one of twelve heroes of mediaeval poetry, in 19th century Hungary the supreme title given by the king or, in a broader sense especially around 1900 in Britain and the German Empire, a knight.
Paladin is a word referring to a champion or warrior of the European Middle Ages, often used to describe Charlemagne's legendary retainers, the Twelve Peers of medieval chansons de geste and romances.
sorry, i just dont see you respect any other opinion than that only your guys had any meaning in history. You are not supposed to graciously incorporate information - and "rvv" as much as history shows to what is correct in your opinion. Plus, Nero, the Salii, and the European office around 1900 are not really left in your "cleansed" version.--FlammingoParliament 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History - Hungary etc[edit]

Well, finally there is some info on the history, at least there was ( This was a nice evening, and since I'm a bit of a history buff, I finally wanted to save my favorite fantasy game character from staying one ;-) Anyway, there is still nothing on the Hungarian title, or maybe there is in a different article, too late now for that, but this would be great, if anyone knows more? --FlammingoParliament 23:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleanup tag[edit]

I've added a cleanup tag to this article, it is in desparate need. Flammingo's messing around with it several months ago has left it in a poor state. It needs to be brought into accordance with the manual of style, and the information needs to be corrected. Right now it does not distinguish between such things as the palatini of ancient Rome and Charlemagne's 12 peers. Additionally someone should look at the other articles Flammingo added his two cents to (palatini, count palatine, paladin (disambiguation), etc.), they are currently pretty confused. I lost patience with this long ago.--Cúchullain t/c 19:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's to distinguish apart from the article content? The information that I "messed into the article" is correct information - the article before that thought a paladin was something in fantasy, not the nobleman with specific rights it really was. You need to be more specific! I'm glad you stopped deleting anything that puts the Caroline palatines into perspective, as you did in November (see history). If you keep insulting (messing, two cents, confused), you are not encouraging a discussion. Now, what are the sentences your think of? Let's start here, and later all the other articles (since in those are many other editors that need convincing)--FlammingoParliament 19:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For general cleanup, see Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Lead section. Remove unnecessary bolding. Create one coherent intro paragraph to summarize what the article is about, not three that just give definitions of different words you associate with "paladin". There is much else in the rest of the article that needs work; for instance the capitalization in the section headers. Additionally your "chronological" formating just looks like you've patched this article out of several loosely related ones; the Ancient Rome section doesn't even mention paladins, only the Praetorians and the Palatine Hill, and you've created entire sections that have only a few sentences. I'm sure that's specific enough for a start. I'll leave this in the hands of others, as I said above, I lost patience with this long ago.--Cúchullain t/c 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now there are no "entire" sections with "only a few sentences" any more, the article is not "patched" from "loosely related ones" any more, the bold print should be in accordance with GTL; please take a look and make suggestions on maybe just one certain sentence to help me getting this on the way, and most importantly, Cuchullain, if the derivation (palatinus-palatine-dine-din) doesn't convince you as you seem to imply (please correct me if I'm wrong thinking you disagree), please say why you do!FlammingoParliament 14:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's better now, but the intro still doesn't summarize all the areas the article covers concisely.
It's not that I doubt the derivation of the word, but why are we discussing all of this in this article? There used to be separate ones for palatine, palatinus, etc. but they all redirect here or to paladin (disambiguation) now. I think this leave the article as a jumble of loosely related concepts. I would prefer that since the article on "paladin" contain information on that subject, then discuss the origin of the term and the concept as it relates to the subject of the article. For example the old Roman position should have its own article, and be referenced here as it relates to the modern term "paladin" (the medieval context). The article on knight has sections on the etymology of the English word, and the development of the institution. It does not include all information on every related word, or on previous horsebackriding warriors.--Cúchullain t/c 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1)Concerning terminology: Because people without experience on word development might not get the idea that they are all the same, and the Roman one was of course not called paladine, just as the Holy Roman wasnt, since that was Latin. I understand the French songs were old French, so would use palaisin - still, all these terms are used as synonyms in any literature! There is no distinction that any spelling has only one context, and that's what the article finally explains! They are by no means "loosely related concepts" as you repeat, how do you come to think that? You really do doubt they are different spellings for one and the same word, then? Paladin was only Roland and his knights, as you say, and paladine only... what? But there was never a distinction between the spellings. Still today, one word can have two ways of spelling (eg. in AE and BE). Also, i would be surprised (and thus happy to learn) to find literature confirming that paladine can never refer to a paladin or palatine. It's based on the "old Roman"(which i understand as 1st century Rome) title. I would prefer that since the article on "paladin" contain information on that subject, then discuss the origin of the term and the concept as it relates to the subject of the article. It does right now: The first in the intro, the second in part 1. Or did you mean it is not certain that the concept of paladin relates to paladin?

2)Concerning splitting: There really isn't that much on each phase of development to justify cutting the article into five pieces or so, it's like knight, which gives derivations and related meanings that are used synonymously - and yes, in their own article (Equestrian) IF it is enough to fill one - right now there are only two paragraphs per period, which is too little for a new article; until there is more material (as there is with the papal paladines), it should remain here. The size of the article would after the splitting remain the same, giving a paragraph to each paragraph there is now linking to two-paragraph pages - with identical content.

3)Concerning It does not include all information ...on previous horsebackriding warriors. There are three large paragraphs on the origins of knighthood, way more than paladin offers. In fact, there is even too little on why the number twelve was so relevant, Last Supper and Salii are two possibilities so far, and on the clothing and hardly anything on what they actually did! Since their job was always close to the monarch, that would be even more interesting. I think our focus would be better on adding even more information on the paladine's development (function, mission, appearance) --FlammingoParliament 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you understand my disagreement at all. You are trying to cram several different, but related, concepts into the article because they are called by the same or similar names. There is no need for this. The Roman title should be in a separate article from the modern concept of "paladin". (someone above even suggested a name like Paladin (Roman) to distinguish them, since you seem to prefer using the one word.)
On top of this, no dictionary I have consulted gave your Roman definition as one of the meanings of "paladin". Some did include the word's etymology, saying it derived from palatinus, others referred the reader to "palatine". None implied they were synonyms for one continuing concept that stretches to Roman times.
This is really the crux of the disagreement (the writing and style problems are largely separate from the content dispute). Perhaps it's time for an RfC.--Cúchullain t/c 03:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My point is that the Roman meaning was hardly changed in the Middle Ages, like the title of Augustus=Caesar=emperor was kept but changed in context like any word did; spellings can change a lot more significantly than t=d in history... But you have still not quoted any sources at all! Now i suggest an RfC as well, since we are stuck.

  • H. Menge, Langenscheidt Latin-German, Berlin 1950: Palatium, i, n., hill in Rome, Kaiserpfalz, ... viva palatia =eternal life, adj. Palatinus 3 noble, royal, comes palatinus Pfalzgraf (count palatine); palatini ministri court society; m.subst. courtling
  • PONS Latin-German, 2000: palatinus, a , um, a) imperial (laurus, domus) b) (mlt.) belonging to the Kaiserpfalz (imperial "palace"), noble, royal, court- (comes ~ Pfalzgraf)
  • Merriam-Webster: paladin, Middle French, from Italian paladino, from Old French palatin, from Medieval Latin palatinus courtier, from Late Latin, imperial official: 1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince), 2 : a leading champion of a cause (this suggests their task remained the same)
  • And when i first inserted this information based on an introduction to Imperial Rome (that is the post-Caesar period until about 500!), paladin was the translation for palatinus.

--FlammingoParliament 12:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did quote dictionaries above. Encarta [3] and [4]. Also, Merriam-Webster [5], which you quote, does not give the Roman title as a meaning of paladin, nor does the American Heritage dictionary [6].--Cúchullain t/c 18:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The dispute above suggests two options: Either the article is extended from its present form on, with the Roman and the Mediaeval palatinus, and "paladin" as well as paladine and palatine are considered an exact translation, or the Roman office and the Mediaval title need to be seperated as only loosely related concepts. --FlammingoParliament 12:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC) keep pre-mediaeval: The Middle Ages Court continued the use of Latin and most offices of the Late Roman Empire, including emperor and paladin. Langenscheidt, PONS, and Merriam-Webster confirm that the mediaeval title was in latin, and only after italian became more important in the Renaissance, the title was changed to the countries' pronunciation as shown in the article (still referring to any predating palatinus equally). They all are the official closest to the emperor (e.g. the count palatine), only adopted to the feudal system.--FlammingoParliament 12:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's my position: this article should stick to what paladin means today. That is, the concept of a medieval Champion, also one of the 12 Peers, etc. This is related to the Roman title, and to the various later titles with similar names (count palatine, the Roman Catholic palatinus, and others.) But it is not the same. I gave links to four online dictionaries, Encarta,[7],[8]. Merriam-Webster,[9] and the American Heritage dictionary[10] None give the Roman title, or as a meaning of paladin. They usually did, though, have an entry for the Roman imperial position, given under palatine, palatinus, palatini, or some variant. I simply see no other option than to have two separate articles, one for the position, preferable under the title "palatine" or "palatinus", and one for modern concept of the paladin, which can't go anywhere else besides "paladin". What Flammingo suggest above seems like it could be appropriate for the palatinus article, but it is flatly inappropriate here, as no dictionary I've consulted gives that definition for the word (perhaps one could be found, but it would be a moot point, considering that the ones I linked to are pretty major.)--Cúchullain t/c 19:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Present Day" section[edit]

I think the line "They are often seen as a over powered as they can deal damage and heal them selves" needs to go. While I understand exactly what the author means, it's a subject entirely unrelated to the topic and belongs on one of the disambiguated pages. Anyone mind if I cut it? Col.clawhammer 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. It was probably just a joke anyway.--Cúchullain t/c 23:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have found that many times titles and terms in games have a strong basis in fact. I am therefore curious as to how we go from the knights of old to the modern day usage in games as holy knights. Forgive my ignorance but your article seems to be missing something akin to the missing link in the Darwinistic Creationism views. (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)CommanderStiddReply[reply]

Please do not add any further examples of modern day game usage, the statement about dungeons and dragons and the proliferation of the paladin concept to many other subsequent games is more than adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velocinox (talkcontribs) 07:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Factual accuracy![edit]

Well, the article is relatively cleaned up from how it was several months ago, but my above concerns with the information Flammingo added are unresolved. I have added a factual accuracy tag.--Cúchullain t/c 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it's again a lot different... the count palatines didnt vote for the king of the empire, for once. If there is still uncertain information after many changes (by others than me, mostly ;-) )then please, whoever thinks so, put it here to talk about.--FlammingoHey 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issues remain unresolved. I'm re-adding the tags.--Cúchullain t/c 01:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, you need to talk to me. This way... just no.--FlammingoHey 07:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My position has been outlined above for well over a year. The tags are necessary, as the current article is not factually accurate. I'm willing to discuss this further but the tags need to stay.--Cúchullain t/c 18:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To reiterate what I said above, the article currently gives a flatly incorrect definition the subject. All the dictionaries I checked with above (Encarta,[11],[12]. Merriam-Webster,[13] and the American Heritage dictionary[14]) give consistent definitions of a paladin as a heroic champion, a defender of a cause, and/or one of Charlemagne's Twelve Peers. None give the definition Flammingo has inserted here: that "paladin" refers to high-level officials in medieval Europe. The same sources do have an entry for that, but it is always under "palatine" or "palatinus" or some variant. Clearly "paladin" derived from the title of the position, but they are not the same, and thus this article is factually inaccurate. The only fix will be to split the articles.--Cúchullain t/c 19:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talk to me. I'm right here. Or do you think "Cuchullain is putting tags in the article he doesnt even think worth reading since they dont make any sense" is better than "Why do you browse for tags that do not fit your problem?"--FlammingoHey 23:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your "only fix" is not a possible option (neither the tags for the above reasons). Would be just wrong, basically, to skip to a new article whenever the SPELLING changed in the course of time.--FlammingoHey 23:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand what you're saying. The tags are the standard factual accuracy and copy editing tags. And they must stay as long as the article gives a false definition. As I just explained for the umpteenth time, I've never found a dictionary that gives your definition, and so this article is factually inaccurate. And I can't understand your last sentence.
At any rate, like I said I'm willing to discuss this further, but the issue will require input from other users. Sadly the RfC from last year failed.--Cúchullain t/c 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the copy edit tag, as that issue has been mostly resolved.--Cúchullain t/c 22:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Demon-forged Ebon Blade of the Endless Sorrow[edit]

The argument regarding the preferences for/against this artifact (or relic, I don't recall) is irrelevant. It is of chaotic evil alignment, and hence unusable by any paladin. JasonPresyl 04:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking for reliable references[edit]

You say (ie. the tag says) the article needs additional references. Well, I'll see what I can do. I assume your main point is the history of non-fictional paladins, and that you are convinced there is none. Is that right?--FlammingoHey 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have explained that you are misusing the word "paladin", claiming it is a synonym for "palatinus" or "palatine" when it is demonstrably not. There's no two ways about this. The material you have introduced is relevant for an article on "palatine", which, as I have shown, has different connotations than "paladin".
As for the tag, I will switch it to the more appropriate "disputed" tag, as references will not help an article that is at its core innacurates. That's the one that used to be up here, but the redirects were switched some time ago.--Cúchullain t/c 21:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said above, this issue will require input from additional users. I'll be filing for another RfC and it that fails as did the previous one, we'll have to take it to a next step. Clearly this is not going to be resolved by discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 00:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Comment: Usage of the term Paladin[edit]

Flammingo and I have disagreed over the course of several years about whether the term "paladin" is being used correctly here: ie whether it is synonymous with the term "palatinus". This has implications for the entire rest of the article.--Cúchullain t/c 01:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My understanding of the English language is that palatine & paladin are distinct words. It's clearly necessary to look @ reliable sources in English to see which word(s) they use in which senses. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Peter. I noted four dictionaries above as giving consistent definitions for paladin: Encarta,[15],[16]. Merriam-Webster,[17] and the American Heritage dictionary[18]. These all include "paladin" as a medieval champion; generally they include the more specific Charlemagne definition. I add to this the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives this definition:"A. n. In modern forms of the Charlemagne romances: any of the twelve peers or most famed warriors of Charlemagne's court. Hence: a knight renowned for heroism and chivalry; a famous champion; spec. a Knight of the Round Table." Then: "B. adj. That is a paladin; of or relating to a paladin; knightly, heroic." The derivation is said to be probably from the Old French palatin, in turn from Latin palatine, which is a separate entry. No dictionary I have consulted, which includes all the major ones, gives Flammingo's definition - that "paladin" refers to high-level officials in medieval Europe. They give that under "Palatinus", "Palatine" or "Palasin". They note that "paladin" derives from "Palatinus" but all maintain separate entries for them. Clearly there is no option here but to split the articles.--Cúchullain t/c 15:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, since we have the ability to redirect (including a redirect to a specific page section), both of these (and other terms) could all be merged to (maintained in) the same article.
I would think that these being on the same page should be fine.
If anything, it helps show the progression of the term. And since our goal in being an encyclopedia is to inform... - jc37 23:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Progression of which term? There are two distinct concepts here. I would agree if you wanted to keep the article focused on "paladin" and have a section on the origin of the word, but there's no point in discussing "palatinus" at length in an article about "paladin." If you are suggesting we merge all related/similar terms to one page and keep different sections on them, that's an interesting idea, but beyond the scope of this RfC.--Cúchullain t/c 01:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The progression of cooking. The change of spelling and function is given in the text, as you well know. So it's clear that you have to use the correct spelling for a certain period. "A paladin" when writing about Roman days was then called "palatinus". Languages differ and develop, there's no debate about this in other articles. Furthermore, there was never both a "paladin" and a "palatinus" at the same time with different functions that would cause different terms. It's just a different spelling, which one finds in every single authentic sentence, in whatever language, of ancient texts. There just was no Windows Spelling Check(R). Putting each section into a new article makes it hardly readable. Why would spelling of synonyms be more important than coherency? FlammingoHey 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain where you got the idea that "palatinus" and "paladin" are synonyms, and why every single dictionary disagrees with you. The fact that you keep missing is that the word "paladin" has never been used for the Roman title, so the article is factually inaccurate.--Cúchullain t/c 17:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion this article should elaborate on the history of the word as far back as possible. While I am not an expert, it seems clear that the literary usage derives from the Carolingian, and the Carolingian derives from the Roman. It is true that the "historical palatinae" have a different flavor than do the "literary paladins" from the Song of Roland or the "modern paladins" of the gaming world. Although the meaning of the word nowadays is much closer to the literary one, leaving out the historical palatinus would be a huge omission. I think people searching on this word want to know where it comes from, starting with the earliest origins. Now, having said all that, I agree that "palatinus" and "paladin" are not synonyms as far as modern usage is concerned. But what is peculiar in this case is that the modern understanding of the term is that of a mythical figure that never really existed anywhere or at anytime. However, the myth is just a highly romanticized version of the historical palatinus of the Carolingian court, and he is awfully close to his Roman counterpart (probably by Charlemagne's design, as was pointed out). So I don't think you can disentangle these concepts. Mizar1234 (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't really valid, as no one has said that the "historical palatinus" material should be left out of Wikipedia. We're just saying it belongs in a separate article, because as I've said repeatedly every dictionary indicates it is a different word. Of course a section (or a few sentences) on the origin of the word "paladin" belongs in a paladin article, but the fact remains that "paladin" and "palatinus" are two distinct concepts. And the point that paladins as they appear in the Charlemagne romances never existed is moot - we have an article on cyclops after all.--Cúchullain t/c 21:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Cúchullain. It is absurd to suppose that "palatinus" and "paladin" are the same word just because they are etymologically connected. Should "tsar," "kaiser," and "Caesar" be merged on that theory? The paladin entry should refer only to concepts associated with the word "paladin," and there should be a cross-reference to a "palatinus" entry. Languagehat (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the only logical solution. As those opposing it have never provided any evidence supporting their view, I suggest we go ahead with it.--Cúchullain t/c 21:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If no one voices any objections (objections with actual evidence, that is), I'm going to go ahead and do this.--Cúchullain t/c 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you have set the terms such that unless someone can prove that "Paladin" and "Palatin" are synonyms, then this means that no "actual evidence" has been presented. But surely an encyclopedia article can talk about two words that aren't exact synonyms if they are closely related enough. However, I have a proposal which you may find satisfactory. I think neither the cyclops analogy nor the Caesar/Kaiser/Tsar analogy are quite apt because one concerns an entirely mythical creature and the other concerns concepts that entirely historical. Maybe a better analogy is the Trojan war, which has both mythical and historical elements. If you look at the article on the trojan war, it is mostly about the myth, but it has a section on the historical basis. Perhaps that structure could be a model for this article. Mizar1234 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the terms are that someone must prove that "paladin" can be used as it is presented here, which is that it was "was a high-level official in numerous countries of medieval and early modern Europe" or else their argument has no merit. The article presents it as if "paladin" and "palatinus" can be used interchangeably, which is demonstrably false. No one has ever said that we can't discuss the origin of the term paladin or that the material on palatinus should be removed from the encyclopedia (I've said repeatedly it deserves its own article, which it had until Flammingo started messing with it some time ago). To use your own analogy, the Trojan War article is entirely about the mythical war as it appears in literature; there is one single section on "historical basis" with a link to a much more in-depth article on the Historicity of the Iliad. That is exactly what we should do here: keep the legendary paladin article separate from the historical palatinus article, and include a section on the historical basis of paladin as it applies. It doesn't sound like you disagree with that.--Cúchullain t/c 17:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flammingo started messing with it: Respect WP:NPA, you are very, very close to failing to do so. The unhistoric view pre-"me" was incomplete, as you, Bill, have admitted. And no, the French poem isn't all there's to that term of identical spelling. The word-final "e" is no valid distinction, not even today, so it's all about t-d, and you know about lenition, i suppose.--FlammingoHey 16:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fail to see how pointing out your editing is a personal attack, though I apologize if it offends you. The pre-Flammingo version was incomplete, but this version is factually inaccurate, which is much worse. What we need is less of your personal opinion about the words being synonyms, and more reliable sources; you have never provided even one reliable source backing up your claims, and all the other ones thus far presented have disagreed with you.--Cúchullain t/c 22:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm trying to work on this issue with you but if you won't respond, and respond usefully - ie by providing sources - I'm going to go ahead and rework the article based on the sources we do have. These all contradict your argument. It is on you to defend the challenged material, and you have not done so over the course of years. As such its time to move on in a productive manner.--Cúchullain t/c 19:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Here's my suggestion: we want an article which focuses on the title of palatine. However, it can't go here, as the word paladin doesn't mean that in the English language. So, it must be moved to a new title: "palatine" is my preference. That article can have a brief section on paladin and the Charlemagne legend and will otherwise retain most of the information that's here. But most of the material on Charlemagne's paladins should be in its own article; it can't go under any other title than "paladin". For that article I propose the first paragraph explains paladin and the development. Then we include a section on "etymology", which explains where the term comes from, how it is related to "palatine" and derives ultimately from "palatinus", and explain what all those mean. That section will also have a brief synopsis of the word "paladin"'s history - how it came to English, and its later meanings beyond the Matter of France. Then a section on the paladins in the context of the chansons de geste and in later variations on the Matter of France (such as the Orlandos). Finally a section on modern use of "paladin", such as in role-playing games, etc. The material on "palatine" will be retained and moved to a page under that title. Thoughts?--Cúchullain t/c 19:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have begun work on the article Palatine. I have also created/fixed the necessary redirects, which had fallen into confusion due to the confusion within the article.--Cúchullain t/c 19:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After no discussion for ten days I'm going to go ahead and reformat the article. As I indicated the "palatine" material is already at palatine.--Cúchullain t/c 21:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done.--Cúchullain t/c 23:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And very well done indeed. I'm glad this got resolved in a sensible way. Languagehat (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Languagehat. More ought to be done, but I think we're much more on the right track now.--Cúchullain t/c 02:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is a fairly heated debate in my family due to bloodlines and whatnot, but someone should look into the official names of the men that were sent with priests as protection when the priests were sent to less friendly parts of the world.

i know that they were not named "Paladins" but (and this may just be a fairy tale) since they wore armor, and were caste for combat they were often more impressive looking than the priests, and therefore commanded more attention. When they would travel with a priest for long enough, they would have near the same understanding of the subject, in much more aesthetically impressive packaging.

I believe that these men are what the pop culture "Paladins" are referring to. however this will require more research, which anyone else is welcome to do at the same time as me.

Anyone wishing to contact me about the topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I was looking for[edit]

Have Gun–Will Travel --Pawyilee (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surprised to find no mention whatsoever; it was one of the top 3-4 TV series in the late 50's, and what most Americans would have immediately thought of in those days at the mention of "Paladin". JohndanR (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2021[edit] (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The true definition of a paladin is Holy Warrior. This definition is based on a myth. This is not a definition. Plus, words can have more than one meaning. Generally.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]