I know that there is no accepted line into antiquity but is there any other person who lived in one 5th century in Europe that can be traced to?

On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 6:29:35 PM UTC-8, Dude wrote:
> I know that there is no accepted line into antiquity but is there any other person who lived in one 5th century in Europe that can be traced to?

I'm not sure there are *any* solid lines that far back in Europe.

Op maandag 3 januari 2022 om 04:22:08 UTC+1 schreef pj.ev...@gmail.com:
> On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 6:29:35 PM UTC-8, Dude wrote:
> > I know that there is no accepted line into antiquity but is there any other person who lived in one 5th century in Europe that can be traced to?
> I'm not sure there are *any* solid lines that far back in Europe.

Even the line of descent to Cerdic is all but sure. To many unsure generations in what seems to be a 9 or 10 th age construction to flatter the Wessex hegemony. That´s what I read the last couple of years.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 1:40:02 AM UTC-5, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op maandag 3 januari 2022 om 04:22:08 UTC+1 schreef pj.ev...@gmail.com:
> > On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 6:29:35 PM UTC-8, Dude wrote:
> > > I know that there is no accepted line into antiquity but is there any other person who lived in one 5th century in Europe that can be traced to?
> > I'm not sure there are *any* solid lines that far back in Europe.
> Even the line of descent to Cerdic is all but sure. To many unsure generations in what seems to be a 9 or 10 th age construction to flatter the Wessex hegemony. That´s what I read the last couple of years.

The 5th century starts to lead to more questions than certaintly on these lines; although the Kings of Leinster would be a candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimthann_mac_%C3%89nnai

Arnulf of Metz certainly is a highly documented early ancestor of Europe with a clear line in the 6th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnulf_of_Metz

The kings of Dál Riata could also be a candidate.

If you are OK with gaps in the line; then it is almost assured that the Armenian rulers were descended from the Arsacids in Parthia which could get you back into the B.C. Maybe someone will dig up better evidence here.

--Joe C

On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 3:03:21 PM UTC-6, joe...@gmail.com wrote:

> The 5th century starts to lead to more questions than certaintly on these lines; although the Kings of Leinster would be a candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimthann_mac_%C3%89nnai

Certain Irish lines are good candidates, but not the one indicated in the above link. These early Irish lines have to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and the Ui Chennselaig line of Leinster (of which the famous "Eve of Leinster" was a member, as well as the above Crimthann) can only be accepted back to about ca. 850 before the chronology becomes suspicious. Much better is the line of Eve's mother Mor from the Ui Dunlaing dynasty of Leinster, which includes descents from several well-documented marriages of the late seventh and early eighth centuries, leading to several lines which go back to the late sixth century at least (and probably a bit earlier).

> Arnulf of Metz certainly is a highly documented early ancestor of Europe with a clear line in the 6th century.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnulf_of_Metz

Probably the best example if you also want to factor in the quality of the documentation.

> The kings of Dál Riata could also be a candidate.

Maybe, but the quality of the documentation for this line during the eighth century is not that good (but also, in my opinion, not as bad as some of its critics have claimed).

> If you are OK with gaps in the line; then it is almost assured that the Armenian rulers were descended from the Arsacids in Parthia which could get you back into the B.C. Maybe someone will dig up better evidence here.

Only if you allow the possibility that the "gaps" are REALLY large. On this basis, I could get us an extra millennium by claiming a descent "with gaps" from Ramses II of Egypt on the following basis: He had more than 70 documented children, and therefore presumably had thousands of descendants after a few hundred years and millions after a millennium or so. By now, his list of descendants would undoubtedly include everybody in the world (with the possible exception of small groups that remained isolated until relatively recent times). If you make the reasonable demand that the "gaps" should be relatively small, and that the descent should be at least approximately known within those gaps, then even the supposed Armenian example becomes troublesome, because the conjectured Armenian lines involve certain key intermarriages which cannot be convincingly demonstrated to be part of the picture in many of the cases where this example is put forward. The most plausible such gap-filled line goes something like
Parthian Arsacids > Armenian Arsacids > Gregorids > Mamikonids > Armenian Bagratids > Georgian Bagratids
the last of which go up to the early nineteenth century. However, I have never seen a plausible attempt to get into medieval Western Europe without a huge amount of conjecture.

With regard to Cerdic of Wessex, with whom this thread started, his candidacy should not be taken seriously. Even if he existed at all (possible, but not certain), the evidence is too late and contradictory to regard the line of descent as plausible.

Also worth mentioning is the line going back through the kings of Dyfed in Wales, which goes back to a king mentioned as a contemporary by Gildas (writing probably in the first half of the sixth century), with the earliest surviving version written probably in the eighth century (surviving in independent Irish and Welsh versions which agree on the important parts). Not as well-documented as some of the Irish dynasties, but not too shabby either.

I am much less well informed on Asian dynasties, but based on what I have read, the case for ancestry of the Japanese emperors would appear to be somewhat comparable to these European dynasties, like the Irish genealogies blending from history into myth and legend in a way that the boundary between them is difficult to determine.

Stewart Baldwin

A terça-feira, 4 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 06:30:43 UTC, Stewart Baldwin escreveu:
> On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 3:03:21 PM UTC-6, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The 5th century starts to lead to more questions than certaintly on these lines; although the Kings of Leinster would be a candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimthann_mac_%C3%89nnai
> Certain Irish lines are good candidates, but not the one indicated in the above link. These early Irish lines have to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and the Ui Chennselaig line of Leinster (of which the famous "Eve of Leinster" was a member, as well as the above Crimthann) can only be accepted back to about ca. 850 before the chronology becomes suspicious. Much better is the line of Eve's mother Mor from the Ui Dunlaing dynasty of Leinster, which includes descents from several well-documented marriages of the late seventh and early eighth centuries, leading to several lines which go back to the late sixth century at least (and probably a bit earlier).
> > Arnulf of Metz certainly is a highly documented early ancestor of Europe with a clear line in the 6th century.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnulf_of_Metz
> Probably the best example if you also want to factor in the quality of the documentation.
> > The kings of Dál Riata could also be a candidate.
> Maybe, but the quality of the documentation for this line during the eighth century is not that good (but also, in my opinion, not as bad as some of its critics have claimed).
> > If you are OK with gaps in the line; then it is almost assured that the Armenian rulers were descended from the Arsacids in Parthia which could get you back into the B.C. Maybe someone will dig up better evidence here.
> Only if you allow the possibility that the "gaps" are REALLY large. On this basis, I could get us an extra millennium by claiming a descent "with gaps" from Ramses II of Egypt on the following basis: He had more than 70 documented children, and therefore presumably had thousands of descendants after a few hundred years and millions after a millennium or so. By now, his list of descendants would undoubtedly include everybody in the world (with the possible exception of small groups that remained isolated until relatively recent times). If you make the reasonable demand that the "gaps" should be relatively small, and that the descent should be at least approximately known within those gaps, then even the supposed Armenian example becomes troublesome, because the conjectured Armenian lines involve certain key intermarriages which cannot be convincingly demonstrated to be part of the picture in many of the cases where this example is put forward. The most plausible such gap-filled line goes something like
> Parthian Arsacids > Armenian Arsacids > Gregorids > Mamikonids > Armenian Bagratids > Georgian Bagratids
> the last of which go up to the early nineteenth century. However, I have never seen a plausible attempt to get into medieval Western Europe without a huge amount of conjecture.
>
> With regard to Cerdic of Wessex, with whom this thread started, his candidacy should not be taken seriously. Even if he existed at all (possible, but not certain), the evidence is too late and contradictory to regard the line of descent as plausible.
>
> Also worth mentioning is the line going back through the kings of Dyfed in Wales, which goes back to a king mentioned as a contemporary by Gildas (writing probably in the first half of the sixth century), with the earliest surviving version written probably in the eighth century (surviving in independent Irish and Welsh versions which agree on the important parts). Not as well-documented as some of the Irish dynasties, but not too shabby either..
>
> I am much less well informed on Asian dynasties, but based on what I have read, the case for ancestry of the Japanese emperors would appear to be somewhat comparable to these European dynasties, like the Irish genealogies blending from history into myth and legend in a way that the boundary between them is difficult to determine.
>
> Stewart Baldwin

Dear Stewart, Happy New Year, how far back do you think the royal line of Wessex can be taken seriously? BTW, what so you think of this article that is harsh on such descents,
https://fmg.ac/publications/journal/volume-2/file/255-flights? I found it cited at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ealhmund_of_Kent.

And perhaps a teaspoon of caution on the supposed line back to Armenia
There are probably insurmountable issues with this proposal

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 2:19:55 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> And perhaps a teaspoon of caution on the supposed line back to Armenia
> There are probably insurmountable issues with this proposal

I thought there were accepted lines back to Gregory the Illuminator (257-301).

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 8:55:38 PM UTC-5, jma...@msn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 2:19:55 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > And perhaps a teaspoon of caution on the supposed line back to Armenia
> > There are probably insurmountable issues with this proposal
> I thought there were accepted lines back to Gregory the Illuminator (257-301).

There is no line to modern Western European monarchies known through Gregory without heaps of conjecture and gaps.

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 7:30:43 AM UTC+1, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 3:03:21 PM UTC-6, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The 5th century starts to lead to more questions than certaintly on these lines; although the Kings of Leinster would be a candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimthann_mac_%C3%89nnai
> Certain Irish lines are good candidates, but not the one indicated in the above link. These early Irish lines have to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and the Ui Chennselaig line of Leinster (of which the famous "Eve of Leinster" was a member, as well as the above Crimthann) can only be accepted back to about ca. 850 before the chronology becomes suspicious. Much better is the line of Eve's mother Mor from the Ui Dunlaing dynasty of Leinster, which includes descents from several well-documented marriages of the late seventh and early eighth centuries, leading to several lines which go back to the late sixth century at least (and probably a bit earlier).
> > Arnulf of Metz certainly is a highly documented early ancestor of Europe with a clear line in the 6th century.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnulf_of_Metz
> Probably the best example if you also want to factor in the quality of the documentation.
> > The kings of Dál Riata could also be a candidate.
> Maybe, but the quality of the documentation for this line during the eighth century is not that good (but also, in my opinion, not as bad as some of its critics have claimed).
> > If you are OK with gaps in the line; then it is almost assured that the Armenian rulers were descended from the Arsacids in Parthia which could get you back into the B.C. Maybe someone will dig up better evidence here.
> Only if you allow the possibility that the "gaps" are REALLY large. On this basis, I could get us an extra millennium by claiming a descent "with gaps" from Ramses II of Egypt on the following basis: He had more than 70 documented children, and therefore presumably had thousands of descendants after a few hundred years and millions after a millennium or so. By now, his list of descendants would undoubtedly include everybody in the world (with the possible exception of small groups that remained isolated until relatively recent times). If you make the reasonable demand that the "gaps" should be relatively small, and that the descent should be at least approximately known within those gaps, then even the supposed Armenian example becomes troublesome, because the conjectured Armenian lines involve certain key intermarriages which cannot be convincingly demonstrated to be part of the picture in many of the cases where this example is put forward. The most plausible such gap-filled line goes something like
> Parthian Arsacids > Armenian Arsacids > Gregorids > Mamikonids > Armenian Bagratids > Georgian Bagratids
> the last of which go up to the early nineteenth century. However, I have never seen a plausible attempt to get into medieval Western Europe without a huge amount of conjecture.
>
> With regard to Cerdic of Wessex, with whom this thread started, his candidacy should not be taken seriously. Even if he existed at all (possible, but not certain), the evidence is too late and contradictory to regard the line of descent as plausible.
>
> Also worth mentioning is the line going back through the kings of Dyfed in Wales, which goes back to a king mentioned as a contemporary by Gildas (writing probably in the first half of the sixth century), with the earliest surviving version written probably in the eighth century (surviving in independent Irish and Welsh versions which agree on the important parts). Not as well-documented as some of the Irish dynasties, but not too shabby either..
>
> I am much less well informed on Asian dynasties, but based on what I have read, the case for ancestry of the Japanese emperors would appear to be somewhat comparable to these European dynasties, like the Irish genealogies blending from history into myth and legend in a way that the boundary between them is difficult to determine.
>
> Stewart Baldwin

Thanks for that post Stewart. I recall you had a Welsh family on your website which I always intended to try to understand better. It is a great to have a summary of your latest thoughts on this question. (Would be nice to have an webpage somewhere.)

Regards
Andrew

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 5:55:38 PM UTC-8, jma...@msn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 2:19:55 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > And perhaps a teaspoon of caution on the supposed line back to Armenia
> > There are probably insurmountable issues with this proposal
> I thought there were accepted lines back to Gregory the Illuminator (257-301).

Suggested lines.
Once you get into the sourcing, you see the leaps that have been made.

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 4:17:55 AM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> Dear Stewart, Happy New Year, how far back do you think the royal line of Wessex can be taken seriously? BTW, what so you think of this article that is harsh on such descents,
> https://fmg.ac/publications/journal/volume-2/file/255-flights? I found it cited at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ealhmund_of_Kent.

The problem with the genealogy of the earlier part of the West Saxon dynasty is that the sources are not that good and contain a large number of contradictions. The best explanation for this is that during the earlier period, the kingdom was often (perhaps even usually) split up into pieces, each ruled by a different member of the royal family. There are plenty of hints of this if one combs carefully through the sources, and this idea has been proposed on a number of occasions. Eventually, after the kingdom became more united, it is likely that the history was partially rewritten by coming up with a king list representing a succession of kings, supposedly ruling one after another. Although there is plenty of evidence to show that this "official" list of kings is problematic, reconstructing the original picture from the known evidence does not seem possible. (Dumville's reconstructed chronology placing Cerdic at ca. 535-550 in an earlier version of the king list seems sound, but this "earlier" reconstructed chronology could still be very late and have nothing to do with actual history.)

My own opinion is that the official ancestry of Egbert of Wessex is probably OK back to Ine's brother Ingeld, and a generation or so before that, and is perhaps "approximately true" as far back as Ceawlin, although one version has an extra generation, and things are extremely obscure by the time you get back to the late sixth century. Earlier than that, virtually nothing is verifiable. I would regard Ceawlin as the earliest clearly historical West Saxon king, and even if he was the ancestor of Egbert, the intervening generations are not entirely clear.

Stewart Baldwin

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 1:47:55 PM UTC-8, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 4:17:55 AM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>
> > Dear Stewart, Happy New Year, how far back do you think the royal line of Wessex can be taken seriously? BTW, what so you think of this article that is harsh on such descents,
> > https://fmg.ac/publications/journal/volume-2/file/255-flights? I found it cited at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ealhmund_of_Kent.
> The problem with the genealogy of the earlier part of the West Saxon dynasty is that the sources are not that good and contain a large number of contradictions. The best explanation for this is that during the earlier period, the kingdom was often (perhaps even usually) split up into pieces, each ruled by a different member of the royal family. There are plenty of hints of this if one combs carefully through the sources, and this idea has been proposed on a number of occasions. Eventually, after the kingdom became more united, it is likely that the history was partially rewritten by coming up with a king list representing a succession of kings, supposedly ruling one after another. Although there is plenty of evidence to show that this "official" list of kings is problematic, reconstructing the original picture from the known evidence does not seem possible. (Dumville's reconstructed chronology placing Cerdic at ca. 535-550 in an earlier version of the king list seems sound, but this "earlier" reconstructed chronology could still be very late and have nothing to do with actual history.)
>
> My own opinion is that the official ancestry of Egbert of Wessex is probably OK back to Ine's brother Ingeld, and a generation or so before that, and is perhaps "approximately true" as far back as Ceawlin, although one version has an extra generation, and things are extremely obscure by the time you get back to the late sixth century. Earlier than that, virtually nothing is verifiable. I would regard Ceawlin as the earliest clearly historical West Saxon king, and even if he was the ancestor of Egbert, the intervening generations are not entirely clear.
>
> Stewart Baldwin

I'm not even sure, at this point, that the line back from Pepin of Heristal is reliable.

A quarta-feira, 5 de janeiro de 2022 à(s) 21:47:55 UTC, Stewart Baldwin escreveu:
> On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 4:17:55 AM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>
> > Dear Stewart, Happy New Year, how far back do you think the royal line of Wessex can be taken seriously? BTW, what so you think of this article that is harsh on such descents,
> > https://fmg.ac/publications/journal/volume-2/file/255-flights? I found it cited at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ealhmund_of_Kent.
> The problem with the genealogy of the earlier part of the West Saxon dynasty is that the sources are not that good and contain a large number of contradictions. The best explanation for this is that during the earlier period, the kingdom was often (perhaps even usually) split up into pieces, each ruled by a different member of the royal family. There are plenty of hints of this if one combs carefully through the sources, and this idea has been proposed on a number of occasions. Eventually, after the kingdom became more united, it is likely that the history was partially rewritten by coming up with a king list representing a succession of kings, supposedly ruling one after another. Although there is plenty of evidence to show that this "official" list of kings is problematic, reconstructing the original picture from the known evidence does not seem possible. (Dumville's reconstructed chronology placing Cerdic at ca. 535-550 in an earlier version of the king list seems sound, but this "earlier" reconstructed chronology could still be very late and have nothing to do with actual history.)
>
> My own opinion is that the official ancestry of Egbert of Wessex is probably OK back to Ine's brother Ingeld, and a generation or so before that, and is perhaps "approximately true" as far back as Ceawlin, although one version has an extra generation, and things are extremely obscure by the time you get back to the late sixth century. Earlier than that, virtually nothing is verifiable. I would regard Ceawlin as the earliest clearly historical West Saxon king, and even if he was the ancestor of Egbert, the intervening generations are not entirely clear.
>
> Stewart Baldwin

Thanks for the reply.