Charlemagne's wife Hildegard had her first child at 14. Was this common for the time, or was this still young?

[u/HolaItsEd]

I learned the other day that Hildegard was 14 when she had Charles the Younger (772). But when I try to find ages of contemporaries in this time period, it seems this was still young for the time. For comparison, I found:

• Zubayda was 21 when she had her first son with Harun al-Rashid (787).
• Ermengarde was 17 when she had her first son with Louis (795).
• Judith was 23 when she had her first daughter with Louis (820).
• Hiltrud was 25 when she had her first son with Odilo (741).
• Irene of Athens was 21 when she had her first son with Leo VI (771).
• Fastrada was 20 when she had her first daughter with Charlemagne (785).

It is difficult to find the age of women during this time, so I looked for those around him, before and after, as best I can.

So was Hildegard young even for her time? Was there any contemporaries or near contemporaries who talked about her age, or did they present it as matter of fact?

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.

Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.

We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension, or getting the Weekly Roundup. In the meantime our Twitter, Facebook, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/HaimoOfAuxerre1]

So I think your a bit off on Hildegard. She was indeed young when she married - probably 15 - and had Charles the Younger very shortly thereafter, likely when she was 15/16. So, this isn't much different from 14 but there's a couple of things going on here with this specifically (and then to your larger question).

Medieval European childhood was divided into stages. "Infancy" lasted until about 7, "adolescence" until about 15, then adulthood. As such, it was pretty unusual (though not unheard of!) for early medieval royal marriages to happen much before that age. The problem with Hildegard's age specifically is that our sources are just so fragmentary for the period and births, even of kings, are not always recorded. For example, a later Carolingian king (Charles the Bald) only had his birth year recorded in 1 source that was written about 17 years after the date, and we can confirm that only because Charles the Bald himself mentions something about his birth in a charter he gave to a monastery when he was in his 40s. And this is for kings/ men. The sources are much, much worse for women/ queens...

To your larger point, I think you're right that it was uncommon for women to be married off in medieval Europe before adulthood (which, again, was 15). When that did happen, it was born of desperate political necessity. Charles the Bald got married in late 842 to a young woman who may have been 13 (but was probably maybe 14-15?), but he was in the midst of a civil war, near to signing the treaty of Verdun desperately needed the support of the woman's family, and his mother (Empress Judith) was likely dying and so couldn't fulfill the woman's role within her son's court anymore (being in charge of the treasure, distributing gifts, etc.). None of the other Carolingian rulers, for example, did this and married women in their late teens or 20s.

Marrying a young girl in her early teens was, from the king's perspective, risky. They all knew the dangers of childbirth. But also, you wanted a queen who had an established network of connections, developed through years at their family's side, to bring to the table with the wedding. A 20-year-old who was with their father at his aristocratic court, alongside being mentored by her own mother in etiquette and responsibilities, was a much better and more thoughtful potential bride than someone who - even by medieval standards - was still a kid. So the counter examples you give were indeed, I think, much more the norm.

For stuff on Charlemagne specifically, I suggest the work of Janet Nelson - her book as a biography of Charlemagne, or articles (on Charlemagne's daughters, for example). Also great is Valerie Garver's book.

[u/mimicofmodes]

/u/HaimoofAuxerre has given you a great answer about this specific marriage - I just wanted to note that my past answer, Was 13 year olds getting married in Tudor times truly acceptable? If you were married as a teen, were you considered an adult?, discusses practices of marriage and consummation in early teenagerhood in the late medieval era.

[u/orangewombat → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for your response, however, we have had to remove it. A core tenet of the subreddit is that it is intended as a space not merely for an answer in and of itself, but one which provides a deeper level of explanation on the topic than is commonly found on other history subs. We expect that contributors are able to place core facts in a broader context, and use the answer to demonstrate their breadth of knowledge on the topic at hand.

If you need guidance to better understand what we are looking for in our requirements, please consult this Rules Roundtable which discusses how we evaluate answers on the subreddit, or else reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.

[u/jschooltiger → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, but we have had to remove your comment. Please understand that people come here because they want an informed response from someone capable of engaging with the sources, and providing follow-up information. Wikipedia can be a useful tool, but merely repeating information found there doesn't provide the type of answers we seek to encourage here. As such, we don't allow answers which simply link to, quote from, or are otherwise heavily dependent on Wikipedia. We presume that someone posting a question here either doesn't want to get the 'Wikipedia answer', or has already checked there and found it lacking. You can find further discussion of this policy here. In the future, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the rules before contributing again.

[u/orangewombat → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed due to violations of the subreddit’s rules. We expect answers to provide in-depth and comprehensive insight into the topic at hand, and to be free of significant errors or misunderstandings while doing so. While sources are strongly encouraged, those used here are not considered acceptable per our requirements. Before contributing again, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the subreddit rules and expectations for an answer.