Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sancho Abarca and Garcia el Tremuloso
259 views
Skip to first unread message
taf
Feb 19, 2017, 2:58:11 PM2/19/17
to
This isn't entirely genealogical, but I note that I never posted about a 2012 article that calls for a reassessment of the nicknames typically assigned to the kings of Pamplona in the 10th century.
Accounts of the early kings of Pamplona/Navarre have been plagued by the inventiveness of the medieval monasteries of Aragon and Navarre, which developed extensive origin legends in their 'chronicles' that combined authentic history with confusion and creativity to produce an account of the foundation and early generations of the royal family. In so doing, they apparently became confused over the repetitive alternation of the names Sancho and Garcia. The authentic succession runs as follows:
Sancho Garces I founded the second dynasty to rule Pamplona by supplanting the previous dynasty in 905, and ruling to 925.
[Jimeno Garces, brother of Sancho - Sancho's son Garcia was still a boy, and Jimeno appears as king for several years before Garcia appears with this title. However, some prefer to view Jimeno as ruling simply as regent for his juvenile nephew. He rules until his death in 931 when Garcia rules alone.]
Garcia Sanchez I appears as king about 929, and is sole king from 931, although his mother Toda served as regent until he overthrew her control with the help of her kinsman, Abd ar Rahman III. He then continued to rule, largely under the thumb of Abd ar Rahman until the latter's death in 961, and on to 970.
Sancho Garcia II, succeeded his father, in 970 and ruled to 994. He likewise struggled to maintain autonomy following repeated defeat by Al Mansur.
Garcia Sanchez II, succeeded his father in 994, he ruled less than a decade, last recorded as being present at a defeat in 1000.
[Sancho Ramirez, perhaps regent, or even king. Canada Juste argues for an interregnum between 1000 and 1004 in an article that I have been unable to acquire, but have seen referred to - he apparently argues for a substantial role by Sancho Ramirez, who was grandson of Garcia Sanchez I and sub-king of Viguera. As 'king' ruling in Pamplona, does that make him king of Pamplona?]
Sancho Garces III, first appears as king in 1004, he would reign for 3 decades and came to be called Sancho el Mayor (the Great). He was successful in overthrowing the submission his family had been forced into over the previous three generations.
OK, so that is the historical line. Unfortunately, the account that came down via the more traditional foundation accounts spans the same period with just three generations:
Sancho Garces Abarca
Garcia Sanchez el Tremuloso
Sancho Garces el Mayor
It has thus compressed five generations, Sancho, Garcia, Sancho, Garcia, Sancho, into just three, Sancho Garcia, Sancho.
When historians recognized that the traditional account of the family was missing two generations, they produced an account that added the two missing generations as such:
Sancho Garces I
Garcia Sanchez I
Sancho II Abarca
Garcia Sanchez II el Tremuloso
Sancho el Mayor
In other words, they retained the nicknames as those of the father and grandfather of Sancho el Mayor, and thus assigned them to Sancho II and Garcia II. This is how you see the nicknames in most 20th century accounts. However, as pointed out by Canada Juste, this may have been mistaken. He suggests that the description of Sancho Abarca in the traditional account is one of a strong warrior who stood up to, and even defeated the Muslims, and this clearly describes Sancho I and not Sancho II. Likewise, 'the Trembler' is more in line with the life of Garcia I, who after expelling his mother spent his entire reign trembling under the thumb of Cordoba without putting up any resistance, and not to Garcia II, who though unsuccessful, stood up to Cordoba and tried to escape from their yoke. Thus, Canada Juste suggests that the nicknames should instead be:
Sancho Garces I Abarca
Garcia Sanchez I el Tremuloso - 'the Trembler'
Sancho Garces II
Garcia Sanchez II
Sancho Garces el Mayor
For the complete discussion, see:
Alberto Cañada Juste, "¿Quién fue Sancho Abarca?", Príncipe de Viana, 73: 79-132 (2012) - a pdf is available at: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4059347
I find his argument entirely persuasive. At a minimum, he raises enough doubt that the nicknames cannot be safely assigned as they were in the 20th century, but I think he has made his case.
How does this fit in? Anyone descended from Eleanor of Provence, wife of Henry III, descends from Sancho el Mayor, and hence from Sancho Abarca. The same applies to descendants of Louis VII by Constance of Castile, or Louis VIII and Blanche of Castile. Likewise, any descendant of Sancha de Ayala has such a descent (via an illegitimate daughter of Alfonso VI, if not a more recent king).
taf
Accounts of the early kings of Pamplona/Navarre have been plagued by the inventiveness of the medieval monasteries of Aragon and Navarre, which developed extensive origin legends in their 'chronicles' that combined authentic history with confusion and creativity to produce an account of the foundation and early generations of the royal family. In so doing, they apparently became confused over the repetitive alternation of the names Sancho and Garcia. The authentic succession runs as follows:
Sancho Garces I founded the second dynasty to rule Pamplona by supplanting the previous dynasty in 905, and ruling to 925.
[Jimeno Garces, brother of Sancho - Sancho's son Garcia was still a boy, and Jimeno appears as king for several years before Garcia appears with this title. However, some prefer to view Jimeno as ruling simply as regent for his juvenile nephew. He rules until his death in 931 when Garcia rules alone.]
Garcia Sanchez I appears as king about 929, and is sole king from 931, although his mother Toda served as regent until he overthrew her control with the help of her kinsman, Abd ar Rahman III. He then continued to rule, largely under the thumb of Abd ar Rahman until the latter's death in 961, and on to 970.
Sancho Garcia II, succeeded his father, in 970 and ruled to 994. He likewise struggled to maintain autonomy following repeated defeat by Al Mansur.
Garcia Sanchez II, succeeded his father in 994, he ruled less than a decade, last recorded as being present at a defeat in 1000.
[Sancho Ramirez, perhaps regent, or even king. Canada Juste argues for an interregnum between 1000 and 1004 in an article that I have been unable to acquire, but have seen referred to - he apparently argues for a substantial role by Sancho Ramirez, who was grandson of Garcia Sanchez I and sub-king of Viguera. As 'king' ruling in Pamplona, does that make him king of Pamplona?]
Sancho Garces III, first appears as king in 1004, he would reign for 3 decades and came to be called Sancho el Mayor (the Great). He was successful in overthrowing the submission his family had been forced into over the previous three generations.
OK, so that is the historical line. Unfortunately, the account that came down via the more traditional foundation accounts spans the same period with just three generations:
Sancho Garces Abarca
Garcia Sanchez el Tremuloso
Sancho Garces el Mayor
It has thus compressed five generations, Sancho, Garcia, Sancho, Garcia, Sancho, into just three, Sancho Garcia, Sancho.
When historians recognized that the traditional account of the family was missing two generations, they produced an account that added the two missing generations as such:
Sancho Garces I
Garcia Sanchez I
Sancho II Abarca
Garcia Sanchez II el Tremuloso
Sancho el Mayor
In other words, they retained the nicknames as those of the father and grandfather of Sancho el Mayor, and thus assigned them to Sancho II and Garcia II. This is how you see the nicknames in most 20th century accounts. However, as pointed out by Canada Juste, this may have been mistaken. He suggests that the description of Sancho Abarca in the traditional account is one of a strong warrior who stood up to, and even defeated the Muslims, and this clearly describes Sancho I and not Sancho II. Likewise, 'the Trembler' is more in line with the life of Garcia I, who after expelling his mother spent his entire reign trembling under the thumb of Cordoba without putting up any resistance, and not to Garcia II, who though unsuccessful, stood up to Cordoba and tried to escape from their yoke. Thus, Canada Juste suggests that the nicknames should instead be:
Sancho Garces I Abarca
Garcia Sanchez I el Tremuloso - 'the Trembler'
Sancho Garces II
Garcia Sanchez II
Sancho Garces el Mayor
For the complete discussion, see:
Alberto Cañada Juste, "¿Quién fue Sancho Abarca?", Príncipe de Viana, 73: 79-132 (2012) - a pdf is available at: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4059347
I find his argument entirely persuasive. At a minimum, he raises enough doubt that the nicknames cannot be safely assigned as they were in the 20th century, but I think he has made his case.
How does this fit in? Anyone descended from Eleanor of Provence, wife of Henry III, descends from Sancho el Mayor, and hence from Sancho Abarca. The same applies to descendants of Louis VII by Constance of Castile, or Louis VIII and Blanche of Castile. Likewise, any descendant of Sancha de Ayala has such a descent (via an illegitimate daughter of Alfonso VI, if not a more recent king).
taf
Roger LeBlanc
Feb 20, 2017, 4:37:06 PM2/20/17
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
I just wanted to say thank you to taf for the notes on these early
generations, which don't help very much with trying to keep them straight in
my head. Still I see it is a sensible revisit to the historical aspects of
this lineage and in that way is helpful.
Roger LeBlanc
generations, which don't help very much with trying to keep them straight in
my head. Still I see it is a sensible revisit to the historical aspects of
this lineage and in that way is helpful.
Roger LeBlanc
D. Spencer Hines
Feb 20, 2017, 7:22:15 PM2/20/17
to
Yes, I found it be quite helpful too -- and I have made corrections to
these Spanish hombres in my database.
Muchas Gracias.
DSH
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Strength to Love - Jan 1963
"Roger LeBlanc" wrote in message
news:mailman.613.14876266...@rootsweb.com...
these Spanish hombres in my database.
Muchas Gracias.
DSH
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Strength to Love - Jan 1963
"Roger LeBlanc" wrote in message
news:mailman.613.14876266...@rootsweb.com...
joe...@gmail.com
Feb 20, 2017, 8:29:23 PM2/20/17
to
On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 7:22:15 PM UTC-5, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Yes, I found it be quite helpful too -- and I have made corrections to
> these Spanish hombres in my database.
>
Thank you Todd for this, very interesting indeed. Sometimes I wonder if some of these "historical" names, when altered will just add to confusion. The nickname had a way to distinguish individuals who will now be hopelessly confused going forward. No way around that I guess
> Yes, I found it be quite helpful too -- and I have made corrections to
> these Spanish hombres in my database.
>
D. Spencer Hines
Feb 22, 2017, 5:13:40 PM2/22/17
to
It is indeed deeply rewarding to discover that one has more then 62 unique
descents from:
Sancho Garces III "El Mayor", Rey de Pamplona [b. ca. 994- d. 1035]...
...And further that one's genealogy software has choked and then indicated
there are many more such descents, too many to count -- as the file is too
large and therefore counting has ceased upon said choking. <g>
Olé!
descents from:
Sancho Garces III "El Mayor", Rey de Pamplona [b. ca. 994- d. 1035]...
...And further that one's genealogy software has choked and then indicated
there are many more such descents, too many to count -- as the file is too
large and therefore counting has ceased upon said choking. <g>
Olé!
taf
Feb 23, 2017, 3:43:21 PM2/23/17
to
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 11:58:11 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> How does this fit in? Anyone descended from Eleanor of Provence,
> wife of Henry III, descends from Sancho el Mayor, and hence from
> Sancho Abarca. The same applies to descendants of Louis VII by
> Constance of Castile, or Louis VIII and Blanche of Castile.
Something I hadn't noticed before: every child of Edward I had 6 descents from Sancho el Mayor, two through their father and four through their mother - this applies independent of which of Edward's wives was their mother.
> How does this fit in? Anyone descended from Eleanor of Provence,
> wife of Henry III, descends from Sancho el Mayor, and hence from
> Sancho Abarca. The same applies to descendants of Louis VII by
> Constance of Castile, or Louis VIII and Blanche of Castile.
> Likewise, any descendant of Sancha de Ayala has such a descent
> (via an illegitimate daughter of Alfonso VI, if not a more recent
> king).
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Feb 24, 2017, 1:52:23 PM2/24/17
to
Just to clarify, this is through the Osorio descent that Nat and I first
presented as speculative but the uncertain generations have since been
accepted by three independent Iberian historians. The Carrillo descent, on
the other hand, has received no attention at all, and I have come to view it
with skepticism. The reasoning remains sound, but I am not sure the
conclusion was.
taf
------------------------------
presented as speculative but the uncertain generations have since been
accepted by three independent Iberian historians. The Carrillo descent, on
the other hand, has received no attention at all, and I have come to view it
with skepticism. The reasoning remains sound, but I am not sure the
conclusion was.
taf
Where can we read that?
DSH
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Strength to Love - Jan 1963
news:d41a84d3-2eff-45c8...@googlegroups.com...
mqs...@gmail.com
Mar 6, 2017, 10:16:09 PM3/6/17
to
I believe these were Basque
- not Spanish.
Patricia Junkin
Mar 6, 2017, 10:23:41 PM3/6/17
to mqs...@gmail.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
I am researching the Uribes who came to Mexico and some day they were also Basque. Does anyone have information?
Pat
Sent from my iPhone
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Pat
Sent from my iPhone
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
taf
Mar 6, 2017, 11:03:55 PM3/6/17
to
On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 7:16:09 PM UTC-8, mqs...@gmail.com wrote:
> I believe these were Basque
> - not Spanish.
One can be both. "Spanish" is a post-medieval nationality, not a medieval one. "Basque" is an ethnicity, and a Spaniard can be Basque, or Catalan, or Galician, or Jewish, mestizo, North-African, . . .
> I believe these were Basque
> - not Spanish.
At the time in question, the Iberian peninsula had several fully-independent nation-states: Galicia, Asturias, Leon, Pamplona*, the Caliphate of Cordoba, and the Frankish Empire. There were several semi-autonomous counties and similar nascent states, that were technically parts of one of these larger states, but sometimes that was only nominal, such as Aragon, Ribagorza, Pallars, Catalonia, the Upper March, and the nameless rebel state of ibn Hafsun. I put a star after Pamplona, because under Sancho I and III it was clearly a fully-independent entity, while in between under Garcia, Sancho II and Garcia, one could make an argument that it was a subjugated vassal state of Cordoba.
Sancho I's father was Basque. His maternal grandfather had a Frankish name but was son of someone with a Basque/Gascon name. The known parentage of Garcia Sanchez I's mother were all Basque. Likewise his wife (and hence his son Sancho II) was largely Basque. However, they then started marrying from out of the region, bringing in strains that were Castilian and Asturian.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Mar 8, 2017, 7:57:51 PM3/8/17
to
Fair enough.
DSH
wrote in message
news:428c7b72-2384-401d...@googlegroups.com...
DSH
wrote in message
news:428c7b72-2384-401d...@googlegroups.com...
0 new messages