When DID he die?
Leo van de Pas
Your database needs a correction:
Hugh, Count of Vermandois, died of wounds at Tarsus 18 October 1101, not
1102. He was buried there in the Cathedral of St. Paul. John Ravilious
has
it right. See Runciman, Vol. II, page 29.
I received this message and looked into where I had received 1102 from.
ES III/1 Tafel 55 gives 18 October 1102, the source given makes me wonder
Tafels 55 to 107 Msk von Pfarrer i. R. Heinzwolf Buck/Lindau in Bodensee
Isenburg/Freitag von Loringhoven Volume 2 Tafel 13 also gives 18 October
1102.
Here the sources given are for Tafels 13 to 22, L. Dussieux, Genealogie de
la maison de Bourbon
Weiss AR 7th edition page 57 last line only gives the year 1101. Here he is
(wrongly ?)
called Duke of France and as John also had him with this title is this were
John Ravilious
obtained his information?
I have no access to Runciman.
Can anyone help?
Many thanks,
Leo van de Pas
Chris Phillips
Leo van de Pas wrote:
> Leo,
> Your database needs a correction:
> Hugh, Count of Vermandois, died of wounds at Tarsus 18 October 1101, not
> 1102. He was buried there in the Cathedral of St. Paul. John Ravilious
> has
> it right. See Runciman, Vol. II, page 29.
> I have no access to Runciman.
> Can anyone help?
Runciman on that page, in a chapter on "The Crusades of 1101", describes the
Battle of Heraclea, early September 1101, and says this of Hugh:
"Hugh of Vermandois was badly wounded in the battle; but some of his men
rescued him and he too reached Tarsus. But he was a dying man. His death
took place on 18 October and they buried him there in the Cathedral of St
Paul. He never fulfilled his vow to go to Jerusalem."
Runciman's sources for this section are "Albert of Aix, VIII, 34-40, pp.
579-82 (the only full source); Ekkehard, XXIV-XXVI, pp. 30-2". If you'd like
to follow this to source, both these are available on the gallica website,
in the "Recueil des historiens des croisades series" - put these numbers
into the "Recherche libre" field on the search page: N051574 for Albert;
N051575 for Ekkehard.
Chris Phillips
Nathaniel Taylor
Well, it was I who first first posted the death date & circumstances on
Hugh of Vermandois when I started this whole messy thread. But the 1101
date is clearly correct, because Hugh died of wounds after the battle in
which a Crusader force was annihilated at Heraklea (Asia Minor) in late
September of 1101. There is no mistaking the year, in the chronology of
the first Crusade's aftermath. Runciman (2:28-29) does not provide a
precise date for that battle, but it was one of three major failures of
Western forces the Summer and Fall of 1101. See generally his _History
of the Crusades_, vol. 2, chapter 2, "The Crusades of 1101." On the
battle at Heraklea, he says:
"Early in September they [see below] entered Heraclea, which they found
deserted as Konya had been. Just beyond the town flowed the river, one
of the few Anatolian streams to flow abundantly throughout the summer.
The Christian warriors, half-mad from thirst, broke their ranks to rush
to the welcoming water. But the Turkish army lay concealed in the
thickets on the river banks. As the crusaders surged on in disorder,
the Turks sprang out on them and surrounded them. There was no time to
reform ranks. Panic spread through the Christian army. Horsemen and
infantry were mixed in a dreadful stampede; and as they stumbled in
their attempt to flee they were slaughtered by the enemy. The duke of
Aquitaine, followed by one of his grooms, cut his way out and rode into
the mountains. After many days of wandering through the passes he found
his way to Tarsus. Hugh of Vermandois was badly wounded in the battle;
but some of his men rescued him and he too reached Tarsus. But he was a
dying man. His death took place on 18 October and they buried him there
in the Cathedral of St Paul. He never fulfilled his vow to go to
Jerusalem. Welf of Bavaria only escaped by throwing away all his armer.
After several weeks he arrived with two or three attendants at Antioch.
Archbishop Thiemo [of Salzburg] was taken prisoner and martyred for his
faith. The fate of the Margravine of Austria is unknown. Later legends
said that she ended her days ia captive in a far-off harem, where she
gave birth to the Moslem hero Zengi. More probably she was thrown from
her litter in the panic and trampled to death."
Runciman cites Albert of Aachen, 8.34-40 (pp. 579-82 in the edition he
cites); and Ekkehard, 24-26 (pp. 30-32), among other material on the
legend of the the Margravine of Austria, etc.
Nat Taylor
Sutliff
FWIW I was working yesterday from ES on the Comtes de Dreux and allied
families. Perhaps it is just me, but I frequently find ES to give a date of
death that is one year off one way or the other from other sources. Has
anyone else found this peculiarity in ES?
HS
""Leo van de Pas"" <leov...@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000401c3e0a9$7f73dba0$c3b4...@com.au...
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"Sutliff" <sut...@redshift.com> wrote in message
news:10132br...@corp.supernews.com...
Peter Stewart
> Leo,
> Your database needs a correction:
> Hugh, Count of Vermandois, died of wounds at Tarsus 18 October 1101, not
> 1102. He was buried there in the Cathedral of St. Paul. John Ravilious
> has
> it right. See Runciman, Vol. II, page 29.
>
> I received this message and looked into where I had received 1102 from.
>
> ES III/1 Tafel 55 gives 18 October 1102, the source given makes me wonder
> Tafels 55 to 107 Msk von Pfarrer i. R. Heinzwolf Buck/Lindau in Bodensee
>
> Isenburg/Freitag von Loringhoven Volume 2 Tafel 13 also gives 18 October
> 1102.
> Here the sources given are for Tafels 13 to 22, L. Dussieux, Genealogie de
> la maison de Bourbon
If this is wrong, the mistake goes back at least to the account of
Hugh in volume I of Père Anselme's _Histoire généalogique et
chronologique de la Maison royale de France_ , p 532 in the 1726
edition.
In _Les Capétiens 987-1328_ (Villeneuve d'Ascq, 2000) Patrick van
Kerrebrouck cites this in giving 18 October 1102, without comment.
However, he also cites Heinrich Hagenmeyer's 'Chronologie de
l'histoire du royaume de Jérusalem' in _Revue de l'Orient latin_ 10, p
392. If this citation is correct (I can't check at present), there may
be more to this than a simple error: Hagenmeyer (unlike Kerrebrouck)
was far too scrupulous with sources to have made such a blunder by
following a mere misprint in Père Anselme - where, incidentally, the
battle at which Hugh received his mortal wounds was placed in 1101.
I suppose it is possible - just - that Hugh lingered in Tarsus for
over a year, unable to travel before dying, but this is scarcely
credible unless there is incontestable proof of his being alive in
1102.
The citations from Runciman are of no use in settling the question of
Hugh's death date. Does anyone have access to _Revue de l'Orient
latin_ 10 to see what Hagenmeyer actually wrote about this?
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> leov...@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote in message news:<000401c3e0a9$7f73dba0$c3b4...@com.au>...
>
>>Leo,
>> Your database needs a correction:
>> Hugh, Count of Vermandois, died of wounds at Tarsus 18 October 1101, not
>> 1102. He was buried there in the Cathedral of St. Paul. John Ravilious
>>has
>> it right. See Runciman, Vol. II, page 29.
>>
>>I received this message and looked into where I had received 1102 from.
>>
>>ES III/1 Tafel 55 gives 18 October 1102, the source given makes me wonder
>>Tafels 55 to 107 Msk von Pfarrer i. R. Heinzwolf Buck/Lindau in Bodensee
>>
>>Isenburg/Freitag von Loringhoven Volume 2 Tafel 13 also gives 18 October
>>1102.
>> Here the sources given are for Tafels 13 to 22, L. Dussieux, Genealogie de
>>la maison de Bourbon
>
>
> If this is wrong, the mistake goes back at least to the account of
> Hugh in volume I of Père Anselme's _Histoire généalogique et
> chronologique de la Maison royale de France_ , p 532 in the 1726
> edition.
Well, it goes back a lot further than Père Anselme - no less than
Fulcher of Chartres indicated 1102, see 'Historia Iherosolymitana' in
_Receuil des historiens des croisades_, Historiens occidentaux [RHC] 3:
[Cap 15, p 397] "Anno autem sequenti, millesimmo centesimo secundo..."
(In the following year, 1102)
[Cap 16, p 399] : "...Iherusalem venire non distulerunt, excepto Hugone
Magno, quem in Tharso Ciliciae defunctum sepelierunt" (they did not
waste time getting to Jerusalem, except for Hugo Magnus whom they buried
at Tarsus in Cilicia).
Runciman said that Fulcher had the land expeditions muddled, but if so
he was not alone. 'Gesta Francorum expugnantium Iherusalem' in RHC 3 has:
[Cap 54, p 531] "Commissum est praelium hoc septimo idus Septembris anno
tertio ab urbe Iherusalem capta..." (this battle was fought on 7
September in the third year from the capture of Jerusalem [i.e. on 7
September 1101])
[Cap 55, p 531] "Sequenti iterum anno..." (Again in the following year)
[Cap 56 p 532] "Eo siquidem anno" (In that same year [i.e. 1102])
[Cap 57, p 532] "...Tharsum usque pervenerunt, ubi Hugo Magnus diem
ultimum nactus, a sociis sepultus est" (they reached Tarsus, where Hugo
Magnus met with his end and was buried by his companions).
No wonder there has been confusion. In 'The Capetian Monarchy and the
Early Crusade Movement: Hugh of Vermandois and Louis VII', _Nottingham
Medieval Studies_ 40 (1996), Marcus Bull accepts the versions given
above, stating that Hugo died in "the autumn of 1102" (p 36). He cited
three other sources too, which are later and/or less definite than these.
So the question is, did Runciman or Fulcher & others get the dates
muddled? Medieval narratives are prone to this kind of flash-back,
-forward and -around, but then Runciman could be careless too. The
editors of RHC also accepted 1102 (3:680 note d), and readers might well
expect a more thorough refutation from Runciman than just a few
dismissive words, assuming he was on the ball at this point.
In my previous post I asked if anyone had access to Heinrich
Hagenmeyer's chronology in _Revue de l'Orient latin_ 10, p 392. In
addition to this (which, failing anyone else's report, I shall be able
to check myself in a week or two) can someone look up Hagenmeyer's
edition of Fulcher, _Historia Hierosolymitana 1095-1127_ (Heidelberg,
1913) p 433 to see if he made any note about the order of events there?
Peter Stewart
The...@aol.com
Dear Peter,
Many thanks for tracking back the 'Anatolian anomaly' to Fulcher of
Chartres. Certainly hard to blame Isenburg, Schwennicke or anyone else for
following this chronology forward.
I think getting to Hagenmeyer's notes will be most interesting, but in
the end I think that Runciman's reconstruction will be found to be correct.
Besides Hugh of Vermandois, the group defeated at Heraclea included William IX,
Duke of Aquitaine, and Welf IV, Duke of Bavaria.
Event/Location Source
1. William IX and Welf IV at Tarsus Runciman II:33, cites
(with Hugh of Vermandois), late Albert of Aix, VIII,
September 1101 40, p. 582; also
Orderic Vitalis,
XXIII, p. 140
2. William and Welf were with Runciman II:58, cites
Raymond of Toulouse at Antioch in Fulcher II, xvii,
February 1101/2 1-2, pp. 433-5
3. William IX, Stephen of Blois Runciman II:76, cites
and Stephen of Burgundy (Etienne Fulcher II, xv,
'tete-hardi') at Beirut, 'early 1-6, pp. 424-8
spring of 1102'; in Jerusalem
at Easter, 1102
From Runciman's cites, it does appear that Fulcher of Chartres went from
his discussion of the successful pilgrimage to (and in) Jerusalem [II, xv,
1-6] back in time to the disaster at Heraclea, and Hugh of Vermandois' death in
Tarsus [II, xvii, 1-2]. As you say, medieval narratives did 'flashback'; the
only way that the order given in Fulcher is chronologically correct in this
regard would be:
A. If Fulcher's text [II, xvii] does not include the account
of the disaster at Heraclea, so that either:
A. Hugh of Vermandois survived a year at Tarsus (say Sept.
1101 to Oct. 1102), or
B. Hugh in fact made it to Palestine with William of Aquitaine
and Stephen of Blois, and managed to get back to Tarsus
in order to die there in Oct. 1102.
I had a copy of Fulcher, but this seems to have gone the way of
Interlibrary Loan; if my theory above is in accordance with your text in Fulcher, then
I think we'll find Runciman to be correct, and everyone else the victim of a
'Fulcherian flashback'.
Cheers,
John *
* John P. Ravilious
The...@aol.com
Dear Peter,
An off-list response was returned 'undeliverable'.
Please reconfirm address.
Grazie,
John
Peter Stewart
I have now checked this, and find that Heinrich Hagenmeyer had reached
the same conclusion as Runciman after all - he wrote that Hugo died in
1101, _circa_ 18 October. Hardly surprising, as he was a mighty expert
in these matters and 1102 was extremely problematic.
The only mystery is why Patrick van Kerrebrouck cited Hagenmeyer's
chronology for giving (precisely) 18 October 1102, following the error
of Père Anselme derived ultimately from misinterpreting the confused
narrative by Fulcher of Chartres.
Runciman was a bit sloppy in not making clear that Hagenmeyer had
sorted this out and determined that 1101 was correct. A number of
secondary sources are quoted that gave 1102, including the 9th edition
of _Grand dictionnaire historique_ (1702) which might have misled the
compilers of Père Anselme (third edition, 1726-33 - I haven't checked
the original version).
Hagenmeyer also points out (p 394) that he couldn't find the source of
dating Hugo's death to 18 October, putting the battle in which he was
wounded at _circa_ 5 September and quoting Gilbert de Nogent for the
fact that he languished some while after this before dying ("languore
protracto tandem occubuit"). Besly in _Histoire des comtes de Poictou_
(1647) was apparently the first modern author to give 18 October,
without citing the source.
Thanks to John Ravilious for clarifying this & setting the issue
straight after I had needlessly questioned the right answer posted by
Nat Taylor.
Peter Stewart
John Ravilious
Dear Peter,
Thanks to you for getting (and giving us) the word from
Hagenmeyer.
This confirms not only the approximate date of Hugh of
Vermandois' death, but also the care needed in dealing with sources,
both primary (e.g, Fulcher of Chartres) and secondary (e.g.,
Runciman).
Merci beaucoup,
John
p_m_s...@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote in message news:<88abeaa.04020...@posting.google.com>...