Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

When the speaker and he to whom he is speaks do not understand, that is metaphysics. -- Voltaire


interests / soc.genealogy.medieval / Re: Father of Loup I

SubjectAuthor
o Re: Father of Loup IGeorge William A.

1
Re: Father of Loup I

<7b2d11f8-253d-40d9-b3c8-8e6db0732c91n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=3718&group=soc.genealogy.medieval#3718

 copy link   Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:10af:: with SMTP id h15mr32633969qkk.493.1641304709530;
Tue, 04 Jan 2022 05:58:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7f84:: with SMTP id z4mr44193908qtj.396.1641304709255;
Tue, 04 Jan 2022 05:58:29 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 05:58:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2.1422981624.22957.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.181.112.2; posting-account=jcyUsQoAAACYufqiMnerUbY6Ef24lV0D
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.181.112.2
References: <CA+z-gxLwYP6GwcEC7_8qM=XxizAn=sxJgrBG8=SnFUA3+vjrhA@mail.gmail.com>
<mailman.2.1422981624.22957.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7b2d11f8-253d-40d9-b3c8-8e6db0732c91n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Father of Loup I
From: william....@gmail.com (George William A.)
Injection-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 13:58:29 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 138
 by: George William A. - Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:58 UTC

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 5:40:26 PM UTC+1, taf via wrote:
> [This is running too long, so I will split it
> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 7:57:17 PM UTC-8, visig...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > As I said earlier, you do not know much about ancient history of Spain and Portugal.
> > You need seriously to check some of your data. In Germany there are important works
> > regarding the history of the goths of Spain (including the Suevi and Vandals) which
> > clarify this situation that have you in this dramatic cloud of existential doubts. In
> > Oviedo there are expedientes of some of the aristocratic families od Spain that descend
> > directly in a patrilinear line from the kings and High Nobility of the Goths, from the
> > Amelung line of Beremund, the Alaric line of the Balthes Clan, the descendants of count
> > Liuverico through his sons Atanagildo, Liuva and Liuvigild, from Theudis, the Ostrogothic
> > general sent to Spain by Theoderic the Great, and who later in Spain married a very
> > powerful hispano-roman lady of an ancient family, and also the descendants of
> > Chindasvinto and the kings of the Suevis who also left important descendence. There
> > were, as you can see, different families and clans that competed for power and for
> > kingship in visigothic Spain and not one single line. Though the Amelung line was by
> > lineage and history the most prominent of them all. The Amelung line became kings
> > in the Suevi Kingdom and briefly kings in the wisi- gothic kingdom as well.
> Sorry, no. It is not good enough to say "you don't know very much"
> and then talk vaguely that there are sources somewhere in an entire
> country (Germany) or city (Oviedo). You need to cite a specific
> source, or even better, quote one. By analogy, you can find similar
> claims among British families, tracing back to before the Norman
> Conquest to Anglo-Saxons who took part in the pre-Conquest government.
> Horace Round showed how the vast, vast majority of them were simply
> made up by the families to glorify themselves, or made up by local
> monasteries for their founder families in order to push back their own
> claim to land. It is a high bar that we place on such claims,
> specifically because of the desirability of them. They need to be
> supported by impartial documentation, not documentation from 1000
> years after the fact that was recorded for the specific purpose of
> showing how glorious the family was. As an example from Iberia, you
> can find a published pedigree from the 17th century that traces the
> Alvarez de Toledo, and in effect every other de Toledo family, plus
> the Guzman and some others, back to Isaac, son of the Byzantine
> Emperor. This does not mean that they actually had such a descent,
> and in fact a superficial examination of the line shows it to be
> completely fatally flawed, to the point of being humorous. You cannot
> take such claims at face value, and the more extraordinary the claim,
> the more skepticism should be applied to its evaluation.
> > Garcia Jimenez was co-regent when king Fortun I Garces was away from power in Sevilla,
> > so your data is not correct.
> Many modern secondary sources claim this to have been the case, but
> what is the actual evidence we have for the man? There is, precisely,
> one historical document written before the year 1000 that names him.
> It is the Codice de Roda (and some would not grant it the early date
> of composition I am giving it). It calls him Garcia Jimenez, "king in
> another part of the kingdom", gives him a brother Inigo (not
> explicitly called Inigo Arista, but some have suggested this is the
> case so they could then impeach the source for making a
> chronologically-impossible claim), two wives, Oneca 'rebel of
> Sanguesa', and Dadildis, sister of Raymond of Pallars, and four
> children.
>
> Where, then, did this trope about him being regent or co-regent come
> from? It was simply an attempt to find a role for him, to better
> account for the fact that one (or more likely two) of his sons became
> kings. Kings don't come from nowhere (or so the reasoning goes) so we
> need to have his father be important within the realm. Fortunately,
> it is known that Fortun was taken captive to Cordoba in about 860, and
> spent 20 years there. This again we owe to the Codice de Roda. At
> some time during this period, his father, the reigning monarch, either
> died or became incapacitated, or so some modern sources report. Thus,
> there must have been a regent, and it would be the perfect role for
> Garcia (or, alternatively, some would have the regent be Garcia's
> father Jimeno, whom they equate with the Mitio, prince of the
> navarrese, who went as envoy to the Carolingian court). There are
> several problems with this.
>
> First, we have no idea when Garcia Iniguez, the 'king' (prince/sahib)
> died. We only hear about him in the writings of Ibn Hayyan and the
> other Al-Andalus chroniclers when he was in open rebellion, when he
> joined forces with Ramiro, or when he intervened in the squabbles
> among the native convert families in Zaragoza. As a consequence, he
> appears just once during the 20 year period of Fortun's captivity, in
> 870/871, and then nothing more. There is a claim that he lived as
> late as 882, when a Garcia not otherwise identified marched south to
> intervene in one of the campaigns of Umar ibn Hafsun, but this is
> problematic. First, king Garcia Iniguez couldn't have been born much
> after 800, and he would have been too old to be campaigning. More
> importantly, I have not been able to find this in any of the
> Al-Andalus sources, or any sources for that matter, prior to the
> 1800s, so it must be viewed with extreme skepticism. Likewise, the
> earliest accounts I do find do not identify him as the king, so it
> could be anyone named Garcia. We can't even tell if Garcia lived to
> see his son's return, and indeed, it could be that the reason Fortun
> was finally released was so that as a client of Cordoba he could
> succeed his recently-deceased father.
>
> There is also, though, another 'king' who appears in documentation of
> the time. A king Sancho shows up in a document from the mid-860s,
> naming his father-in-law Galindo. This document is presumably
> responsible for some of the secondary accounts that claim king Sancho
> Garces married the daughter of Galindo II Aznar (only to have his son
> marry another of Galindo's daughters almost 70 years later!). The
> better candidate is Sancho Garces, brother of Fortun. Were he
> son-in-law of Galindo I Aznar, it would mean that siblings Oneca and
> Sancho Garces, children of Garcia Iniguez, married siblings Aznar II
> and an unnamed sister, such double marriages being a common pattern.
> This interpretation is given weight by the name that Sancho gave his
> son, Aznar (although one should be cautious to over-interpret
> onomastics in this period when we know of so few families). What all
> this has to do with anything, is that there was a perfectly viable
> regent from within the royal family, were they looking for a regent in
> the absence of Fortun. As to the use of 'king' when his father was
> still living, the term seems to have been applied more broadly in
> Navarre - there are several later cases where a member of the royal
> family who did not rule a 'kingdom' still is referred to by the title,
> including Sancho I's elder brother Inigo, and Sancho II's son Jimeno.
> In the 860s, the meaning of being a king in this region is not what we
> would recognize, it being applied to people who were little more than
> local tribal chieftains (in some cases we have translation back and
> forth with Arabic to thank for the imprecision - Garcia Iniguez is
> called sahib by the Arab chroniclers, but even they were writing far
> enough after the fact that they may have extrapolated back and applied
> to the earlier men terminology more fitting to the grandeur their
> descendants achieved).
>
> The take-home message of all this is that we know next to nothing
> about Garcia Jimenez, and much of what we think we know from secondary
> sources is not well supported. Just for the sake of the exercise
> though, please explain how a man who died in 819 could have been a
> co-regent between 860 and 880.
> > Remember that there are several Garsind (or Garcias) so you should check your data
> > well. Garsind Llop f. instance is another character and so are others Garcias and
> > Sanchos from other branches of these gascogne families, all of different origin than
> > the Eneconis which descended from the dukes of Cantabria Andeca and Beremund,
> > both brothers, in time of the decline of the Visigothic kingdom. Duke Andeca called
> > by some sources "the 1st prince of the Basque" was the son of Froilla, Conde and
> > Procer of the Goths, died in 654 in the siege of Zaragoza, killed by Recesvinto, son
> > of Chindasvinto. Dux Andeca married Momerana of the Franks. Andeca died in the
> > year 711 in Guadalete. So did his son Eneco, kinsman of King Roderick.
> Much of this is poorly supported, to say the least, but even were it
> all true, we cannot trace Inigo Arista beyond his father.
>
> [to be continued]
>
> taf


Click here to read the complete article
1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor