Palaiologos Descents for John of Gaunt
Adam Moore
Palaiologos for John of Gaunt.
Thanks
Saif
The Williams Family
No, there are no descents to John of Gaunt from the Palaiologoi. The earliest king of England descended from them is
Charles II (through the Lusignans).
Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams
Pierre Aronax
"Adam Moore" <tizoc...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
AJx7a.4625$M85.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I was wondering if there are any properly documented descents from the
> Palaiologos for John of Gaunt.
>
> Thanks
He was not a descendent of an imperial Palaiologos. The most recent emperor
from whose he was descendant was, I think, Theodor I Laskaris:
Theodor I Laskaris Emperor of the Romans (1208-1222)
|
Maria Laskarina
|
Stephen V, king of Hungary
|
Maria of Hungary
|
Marguerite of Anjou
|
Jeanne of Valois
|
Philippa of Hainault
|
John of Gaunt
Pierre Aronax
History Writer
> Hello,
>
> No, there are no descents to John of Gaunt from the Palaiologoi. The earliest king of England descended from them is
> Charles II (through the Lusignans).
>
> Sincerely,
> Kelsey J. Williams
But John of Guant's father Edward III's matrilineal line, if correct
per roglo, includes a member of Palaiologos family. Interesting to
see that Edward appears to have had Bagratid Georgian/Armenian mtDNA:
1. Aspae Bagratid=Georgios Palaiologos Komnenodoukas, sebastos
+1167/1168 (son of Alexios Palaiologos)
2. Eirene Palaiologina +1185=Emporer Isaak II Angelos
3. Eirene Angelina 1180-1208=Philipp von Hohenstaufen, ca 1177-1208
4. Maria von Hohenstaufen 1201-1235=Henri II, duc de Brabant
1207-1248
5. Mahaut de Brabant 1224-1288=Robert Ier le Bon, comte d'Artois
1216-1250
6. Blanche d'Artois, régente de Navarre ca 1248-1302=Henri Ier le
Gros de Champagne, roi de Navarre +1274 (Through her second marriage
to Edmund Crouchback Plantagenet, earl of Lancaster, Blanche d'Artois
was ancestress of John of Guant's first wife Blanche of Lancaster)
7. Jeanne Ière de Champagne, reine de Navarre 1271-1305=Philippe IV
le Bel Capet, roi de France 1268-1314
8. Isabelle Capet, queen of England 1292-1358=Edward II, King of
England
9. Edward III, king of England 1312-1377
Pierre Aronax
"History Writer" <hbv...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3943286.03022...@posting.google.com...
> gkkwi...@cowboy.net (The Williams Family) wrote in message
news:<3E5F8481...@cowboy.net>...
> > Hello,
> >
> > No, there are no descents to John of Gaunt from the Palaiologoi.
The earliest king of England descended from them is
> > Charles II (through the Lusignans).
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Kelsey J. Williams
>
> But John of Guant's father Edward III's matrilineal line, if correct
> per roglo, includes a member of Palaiologos family. Interesting to
> see that Edward appears to have had Bagratid Georgian/Armenian mtDNA:
>
> 1. Aspae Bagratid=Georgios Palaiologos Komnenodoukas, sebastos
> +1167/1168 (son of Alexios Palaiologos)
> 2. Eirene Palaiologina +1185=Emporer Isaak II Angelos
Accumulation of hypothesis.
The identification of Emperor Isaak II's first wife with a Palaiologina is
only an hypothesis, based on the fact that the protopanhypersebastos
Andronikos Palaiologos (+ after 1191) was Isaak II's "gambros" (a word which
can describe more than one kind of relationships by marriage, particularly
"son-in-law" or "brother-in-law"). Even her Christian name, Eirčnč, is known
only by a Western source. For my part I don't believe Isaak II was married
with a Palaiologina: for various reasons, I think it is Andronikos' wife who
was a relative of Isaak II, and not the reverse.
This hypothesis is combined here with an other hypothesis, making of
Andronikos Palaiologos a son of the sebastos Geôrgios Palaiologos (I think
that, for anthroponomical reasons, this is highly probable).
Then come a third hypothesis (suggested firstly by Jean-François Vannier)
making of Aspač, a relative of Katač of Georgia wife of the porphyrogenetos
Alexios Komnčnos (but not for that a Bagratide as stated above) , the wife
of Geôrgios Palaiologos. It can be exact, but that makes not for that of
Aspač the mother of the supposed son of Geôrgios, and even less the mother
of the supposed sister of this supposed son.
<...>
> 8. Isabelle Capet, queen of England
<...>
Une citoyenne Capet reine d'Angleterre: piquant! :)
Pierre
Don Stone
> "History Writer" <hbv...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3943286.03022...@posting.google.com...
>
>>per roglo, includes a member of Palaiologos family. Interesting to
>>see that Edward appears to have had Bagratid Georgian/Armenian mtDNA:
>>
>>1. Aspae Bagratid=Georgios Palaiologos Komnenodoukas, sebastos
>>+1167/1168 (son of Alexios Palaiologos)
>>2. Eirene Palaiologina +1185=Emporer Isaak II Angelos
>
>
> Accumulation of hypothesis.
>
> The identification of Emperor Isaak II's first wife with a Palaiologina is
> only an hypothesis, based on the fact that the protopanhypersebastos
> Andronikos Palaiologos (+ after 1191) was Isaak II's "gambros" (a word which
> can describe more than one kind of relationships by marriage, particularly
> "son-in-law" or "brother-in-law"). Even her Christian name, Eirčnč, is known
> only by a Western source. For my part I don't believe Isaak II was married
> with a Palaiologina: for various reasons, I think it is Andronikos' wife who
> was a relative of Isaak II, and not the reverse.
Could you give us a brief account of these various reasons?
This issue was discussed here in 2000 (an archive search for Hiestand will
find the discussion).
-- Don Stone
Pierre Aronax
"Don Stone" <don....@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E6005BA...@verizon.net...
> Pierre Aronax wrote:
> > "History Writer" <hbv...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 3943286.03022...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >>But John of Guant's father Edward III's matrilineal line, if correct
> >>per roglo, includes a member of Palaiologos family. Interesting to
> >>see that Edward appears to have had Bagratid Georgian/Armenian mtDNA:
> >>
> >>1. Aspae Bagratid=Georgios Palaiologos Komnenodoukas, sebastos
> >>+1167/1168 (son of Alexios Palaiologos)
> >>2. Eirene Palaiologina +1185=Emporer Isaak II Angelos
> >
> >
> > Accumulation of hypothesis.
> >
> > The identification of Emperor Isaak II's first wife with a Palaiologina
is
> > only an hypothesis, based on the fact that the protopanhypersebastos
> > Andronikos Palaiologos (+ after 1191) was Isaak II's "gambros" (a word
which
> > can describe more than one kind of relationships by marriage,
particularly
known
> > only by a Western source. For my part I don't believe Isaak II was
married
> > with a Palaiologina: for various reasons, I think it is Andronikos' wife
who
> > was a relative of Isaak II, and not the reverse.
>
> Could you give us a brief account of these various reasons?
>
> This issue was discussed here in 2000 (an archive search for Hiestand will
> find the discussion).
It's here:
http://groups.google.fr/groups?selm=3885439C.E6E388B1%40plantagenet.com&oe=U
TF-8&output=gplain
Interesting post. Just a little bibliographical correction: it's "Cheynet"
and not "Cheynette". And Andronikos Palaiologos given (correctly) as a son
in law of Alexios (son of Geôrgios the megas hetaireiarches) is not the same
with Andronikos "gambros" of Isaak II: the first one was barrely born when
the second one died. Also, J.-F. Vannier want back on the question of Aspaè
in an article ("Notes généalogiques byzantino-géorgiennes") published in
"Eupsychia [This word in Greek fonts]. Mélanges offerts à Hélène
Ahrweiller", II, Paris 1998.
His hypothesis is very convincing of course, but that is not for that that
Geôrgios Palaiologos had only one wife. So, I think it is more prudent to
consider that Geôrgios Palaiologos' children are from an unknown mother.
Now to the question of Andronikos the "gambros": my basic reason to think he
was married to a relative of Isaak II, and not the reverse, is the son I
give to him. I think that, if he was a son of Geôrgios the megas
hetaireiarches, and since his (supposed) brother had probably no son, then
for anthroponimical reasons he must be the father of an other Geôrgios,
attested in the last years of the 12th century.
Then, this Geôrgios took part in the plot against Isaak II: speaking of the
conspirators, among which this Geôrgios, Nikètas Choniatès says that they
were all "related by blood to the emperor" ("kata genos tô basilei
sunaptomenoi"). I am not a scholar in Choniatès, but I would be surprise if
he considered as a parentage "kata genos", "by the race", the fact to be the
son of the brother of a previous wife. On the other hand, if Andronikos was
married to a relative of Isaak II (probably a cousin), and if, as I suspect,
Geôrgios was the son of this marriage, to describe him as a relative "kata
genos" suits better. And so, Hiestand notwithstanding, I don't think Isaak
II was never married with a Palaiologina. But perhaps I am wrong and "kata
genos" can have a broder meaning in Choniatès and can refer to a parentage
which is not really by blood: only a specialist of Choniatès vocabulary can
answer this question.
I would be happy to have your opinion on my opinion.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3e60a183$0$4635$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net...
<...>
> On the other hand, if Andronikos was
> married to a relative of Isaak II (probably a cousin),
<...>
Since "gambros" can perfectly specify a by-marriage relationship more
distant than "brother-in-law" or "son-in-law". Particularly, for what is of
the use of the word by Nikčtas Choniatčs, I note for example that, speaking
of the relationship between Iôannčs Kantakouzčnos and Kônstantinos Angčlos,
brother of Issak II, who were brothers-in-law, the historian doesn't say
that Kônstantinos is Iôannčs' "gambros", but that he is his
"gunaichomaimos". These makes me think that Choniatčs uses the word
"gambros" precisely for other relationship than "brother-in-law", more
distant and/or less precise. But of course, I don't pretend to have make an
exhaustive investigation of all the occurence of this word in his works.
The possibility of the relationship I propose (Andronikos married to a
cousin/niece of Isaak II) was already suggested by J.-F. Vannier but, if I
record corectly, he didn't use the argument of the relationship between
Geôrgios Palaiologos, son (in my hypothesis) of Andronikos), and Isaak II,
since he didn't make of this Geôrgios a son of Andronikos.
Pierre
Igor Sklar
> But John of Guant's father Edward III's matrilineal line, if correct
> per roglo, includes a member of Palaiologos family. Interesting to
> see that Edward appears to have had Bagratid Georgian/Armenian mtDNA:
>
> 1. Aspae Bagratid=Georgios Palaiologos Komnenodoukas, sebastos
> +1167/1168 (son of Alexios Palaiologos)
> 2. Eirene Palaiologina +1185=Emporer Isaak II Angelos
> 3. Eirene Angelina 1180-1208=Philipp von Hohenstaufen, ca 1177-1208...
<snip>
History Writer suggested that imperial Palaiologi had a Bagratid
blood. What a good History it would make!
I don't care about these pitiable efforts to claim descent from
Palaiologi and Bagratids much less understand them. The majority of
Russian aristocrats had the blood of Makedonioi, Palaiologi, Komnenoi,
and what not thanks to Byzantine marriages of their forefathers and
Bagratid marriages of themselves. Unlike the Western Europeans,
Russian rulers had no prejudices to marry into all the families of the
West and East. That's why any Prince Kouragin or Droubetskoy may prove
his descent from Arsacides and other contemporaries of Christ, which
neither H.M. Queen Elisabeth nor the king of Spain can do.
To return to the subject of this thread. Judging by names, Kata was a
Georgian princess, but Aspa was not. Aspa is 'horse' in Ossetian.
Horse is a holy animal for people of the Steppe. IMHO, Aspa was the
first cousin of Kata through her aunt Rusudan, who was married to
David of Ossetia.
But perhaps Ossetian princes of the 12th cent. were Bagratids
themselves? If they were, then all the Rurikids were Bagratids too.
Mstislav the Great's brother Yaropolk, son Izyaslav, grandson
Yaroslav, and great grandson Mstislav of Chernigov were all married to
Ossetian princesses. Don't forget that the 1st wife of Izyaslav was
Rusudani of Georgia. Among Mstislav's nephews, Andrey and Vsevolod
were both married to Ossetians. Its enough to look at purely Caucasian
stone carvings of their splendid Vladimir cathedrals to recall that
ruling princes were half-Georgians themselves. Andrey's son George
decided to try his luck in the land of his mother... and married Queen
Thamar. The 'great nest' of Vsevolod was a Caucasian one too: just
look at the portrait of his son Yaroslav in the Saviour on Nereditsa
church (painted ca 1220) if you have any doubts...
Regards, Igor
Andrey Frizyuk
> I don't care about these pitiable efforts to claim descent from
> Palaiologi and Bagratids much less understand them. The majority of
> Russian aristocrats had the blood of Makedonioi, Palaiologi, Komnenoi,
> and what not thanks to Byzantine marriages of their forefathers and
> Bagratid marriages of themselves. Unlike the Western Europeans,
> Russian rulers had no prejudices to marry into all the families of the
> West and East. That's why any Prince Kouragin or Droubetskoy may prove
> his descent from Arsacides and other contemporaries of Christ, which
> neither H.M. Queen Elisabeth nor the king of Spain can do.
Now, that's too much! Discussing these two particular families, I had
a chance to point out to you that they belonged to a very FEW Russian
families with Bagratid descent. Intermarriage of Russian and Georgian
families was not that great.
> To return to the subject of this thread. Judging by names, Kata was a
> Georgian princess, but Aspa was not. Aspa is 'horse' in Ossetian.
> Horse is a holy animal for people of the Steppe. IMHO, Aspa was the
> first cousin of Kata through her aunt Rusudan, who was married to
> David of Ossetia.
You forget that Vladimir Monomakh was married to the daughter of Kuman
khan Aspa in 1106, and Oleg of Chernigov married a daughter of
(another?) Aspa the next year. The Sharukanids were a ruling Kipchak
dynasty at the time, so chronologically Aspa ("Horse") should be a son
of Sharukan ("Dragon"). David the Builder married Guranduht, a
granddaughter of Sharukan, in 1118. If Katae was born from this union,
she was about 18/20 when she married Alexios Komnenos (1106-42) as his
2nd wife. In this scenario Aspae (undoubtedly a daughter of Khan Aspa)
also would be the 1st cousin of Katae of Georgia.
> But perhaps Ossetian princes of the 12th cent. were Bagratids
> themselves? If they were, then all the Rurikids were Bagratids too.
> Mstislav the Great's brother Yaropolk, son Izyaslav, grandson
> Yaroslav, and great grandson Mstislav of Chernigov were all married to
> Ossetian princesses. Don't forget that the 1st wife of Izyaslav was
> Rusudani of Georgia. Among Mstislav's nephews, Andrey and Vsevolod
> were both married to Ossetians. Its enough to look at purely Caucasian
> stone carvings of their splendid Vladimir cathedrals to recall that
> ruling princes were half-Georgians themselves. Andrey's son George
> decided to try his luck in the land of his mother... and married Queen
> Thamar. The 'great nest' of Vsevolod was a Caucasian one too: just
> look at the portrait of his son Yaroslav in the Saviour on Nereditsa
> church (painted ca 1220) if you have any doubts...
You always repeat the words of others! Don't you think you're the only
one who read Pcholov's book on Rurikids? Most of his arguments are
arbitrary and ambiguous, like this one.
Andrey
Pierre Aronax
"Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com...
> hbv...@aol.com (History Writer) wrote in message
news:<3943286.03022...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > But John of Guant's father Edward III's matrilineal line, if correct
> > per roglo, includes a member of Palaiologos family. Interesting to
> > see that Edward appears to have had Bagratid Georgian/Armenian mtDNA:
> >
> > 1. Aspae Bagratid=Georgios Palaiologos Komnenodoukas, sebastos
> > +1167/1168 (son of Alexios Palaiologos)
> > 2. Eirene Palaiologina +1185=Emporer Isaak II Angelos
> > 3. Eirene Angelina 1180-1208=Philipp von Hohenstaufen, ca 1177-1208...
> <snip>
>
> History Writer suggested that imperial Palaiologi had a Bagratid
> blood. What a good History it would make!
>
> I don't care about these pitiable efforts to claim descent from
> Palaiologi and Bagratids much less understand them. The majority of
> Russian aristocrats had the blood of Makedonioi, Palaiologi, Komnenoi,
> and what not thanks to Byzantine marriages of their forefathers and
> Bagratid marriages of themselves. Unlike the Western Europeans,
> Russian rulers had no prejudices to marry into all the families of the
> West and East.
Could you indicate the identity of the Russian prince who is supposed to
have wedded in the Palaiogos family (if of course it was more than a
rhetorical way to speak)? I see no Russian prince who became the husband a
Palaiologina before Ivan III, at a time when Western aristocracy had already
badly intermarried with the Palaiologoi.
> That's why any Prince Kouragin or Droubetskoy may prove
> his descent from Arsacides and other contemporaries of Christ,
I think nobody can prove such ascendancy.
Pierre
Don Stone
> "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3e60a183$0$4635$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net...
> <...>
>>On the other hand, if Andronikos was
>>married to a relative of Isaak II (probably a cousin),
> <...>
> Since "gambros" can perfectly specify a by-marriage relationship more
> distant than "brother-in-law" or "son-in-law". Particularly, for what is of
> the use of the word by Nikčtas Choniatčs, I note for example that, speaking
> of the relationship between Iôannčs Kantakouzčnos and Kônstantinos Angčlos,
> brother of Issak II, who were brothers-in-law, the historian doesn't say
> that Kônstantinos is Iôannčs' "gambros", but that he is his
> "gunaichomaimos". These makes me think that Choniatčs uses the word
> "gambros" precisely for other relationship than "brother-in-law", more
> distant and/or less precise. But of course, I don't pretend to have make an
> exhaustive investigation of all the occurence of this word in his works.
The reference to the "gambros" relationship of Andronikos and Isaak II is not
from Choniatčs. It is from a governmental/legal document which relates to the
synod held under Isaak II in Sept. 1191 and which includes a list of the
dignitaries present.
> The possibility of the relationship I propose (Andronikos married to a
> cousin/niece of Isaak II) was already suggested by J.-F. Vannier but, if I
> record corectly, he didn't use the argument of the relationship between
> Geôrgios Palaiologos, son (in my hypothesis) of Andronikos), and Isaak II,
> since he didn't make of this Geôrgios a son of Andronikos.
Thank you, Pierre, for your comments about the way in which "gambros" applied
and the degree of closeness which it implied; they answer very nicely the
question in my followup posting dated 19 Jan. 2000,
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=38863977.CA00BD15%40plantagenet.com.
Your observations about the reference to the conspirator Geôrgios
Palaiologos as "kata genos" to the emperor could well be significant, but, as
you say in your earlier message, it would be nice to hear what a "specialist
of Choniatčs vocabulary" says about "kata genos".
-- Don Stone
Don Stone
> skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Georgian princess, but Aspa was not. Aspa is 'horse' in Ossetian.
>>Horse is a holy animal for people of the Steppe. IMHO, Aspa was the
>>first cousin of Kata through her aunt Rusudan, who was married to
>>David of Ossetia.
>
> You forget that Vladimir Monomakh was married to the daughter of Kuman
> khan Aspa in 1106, and Oleg of Chernigov married a daughter of
> (another?) Aspa the next year. The Sharukanids were a ruling Kipchak
> dynasty at the time, so chronologically Aspa ("Horse") should be a son
> of Sharukan ("Dragon"). David the Builder married Guranduht, a
> granddaughter of Sharukan, in 1118. If Katae was born from this union,
> she was about 18/20 when she married Alexios Komnenos (1106-42) as his
> 2nd wife. In this scenario Aspae (undoubtedly a daughter of Khan Aspa)
> also would be the 1st cousin of Katae of Georgia.
If you are saying that Guranduht was a daughter of Aspa (son of Sharukan),
then wouldn't Aspae (if a daughter of Aspa) be the aunt of Katae, not the
cousin? This seems to make Aspae too old, though, and I wonder whether making
Aspae a daughter of Aspa isn't more specific than the onomastics can justify.
At any rate, Toumanoff (_Les Dynasties de la Caucasie Chrétienne_, 1990, Table
22, Gen. 5) says that David the Builder married 2nd Gourandoukht, daughter of
Atraka [not Aspa], prince of the Kiptchaks.
-- Don Stone
George Tsambourakis
> > distant than "brother-in-law" or "son-in-law".
It is always amusing to read French Interpretations of the Greek Language.
It appears that nobody asks Greeks what they mean when they use words
like Gambros.
Nobody asked me, but I am going to tell you anyway,
with the hope somebody may actually listen.
For the family of the BRIDE, GAMBROS is the new Husband.
That means the NEW HUSBAND is GAMBROS to FATHER, MOTHER, BROTHERS and
SISTERS
For the Family of the NEW HUSBAND, the BRIDE is NYMPHY.
for the parents of the New Husband, but KOUNIADOI (Plural
of Kouniados) for the Brothers and Sisters of the New Husband.
That is, the brother of the Bride, is Kouniados to the Brother of the
Husband.
(The brother of the Husband is Gambros to the Brother of the Bride)
The parents of the New Husband and the parents of the Bride, refer to each
other as SYNTEKNOS.
That's The FOUR WORDS GREEKS USE to describe an In-Law relationship.
Gambros, Nymphy, Kouniados, Synteknos.
Any other words of interpretations have nothing to do with the
Greek Language (old or New).
Dr. George Tsambourakis
343 Major's Line Road
Tooborac, Victoria 3522, Australia
eac...@ozemail.com.au
"Don Stone" <don....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3E62788E...@verizon.net...
> Pierre Aronax wrote:
> > "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:
> > 3e60a183$0$4635$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net...
> > <...>
> >>On the other hand, if Andronikos was
> >>married to a relative of Isaak II (probably a cousin),
> > <...>
Don Stone
>> > Since "gambros" can perfectly specify a by-marriage relationship more
>> > distant than "brother-in-law" or "son-in-law".
>
>
> It is always amusing to read French Interpretations of the Greek Language.
> It appears that nobody asks Greeks what they mean when they use words
> like Gambros.
> Nobody asked me, but I am going to tell you anyway,
> with the hope somebody may actually listen.
>
> For the family of the BRIDE, GAMBROS is the new Husband.
George,
We went through all of this in January 2000. Medieval Greek is different from
modern Greek.
-- Don Stone
George Tsambourakis
These words were used since Jesus was born and are very clear
if used correctly.
If the meaning is distorted once because of a misinterpretation, it always
remains distorted.
Pierre Aronax
"Don Stone" <don....@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E62788E...@verizon.net...
I know: my second message was a footnote.
> > The possibility of the relationship I propose (Andronikos married to a
> > cousin/niece of Isaak II) was already suggested by J.-F. Vannier but,
if I
> > record corectly, he didn't use the argument of the relationship
between
> > Geôrgios Palaiologos, son (in my hypothesis) of Andronikos), and Isaak
II,
> > since he didn't make of this Geôrgios a son of Andronikos.
>
> Thank you, Pierre, for your comments about the way in which "gambros"
applied
> and the degree of closeness which it implied; they answer very nicely the
> question in my followup posting dated 19 Jan. 2000,
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=38863977.CA
00BD15%40plantagenet.com.
> Your observations about the reference to the conspirator Geôrgios
> Palaiologos as "kata genos" to the emperor could well be significant, but,
as
> you say in your earlier message, it would be nice to hear what a
"specialist
> of Choniatčs vocabulary" says about "kata genos".
Indeed, joined with "sunaptomenos".
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
"George Tsambourakis" <eac...@ozemail.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
news: 37x8a.51$PO6....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > > Since "gambros" can perfectly specify a by-marriage relationship
more
> > > distant than "brother-in-law" or "son-in-law".
>
> It is always amusing to read French Interpretations of the Greek Language.
> It appears that nobody asks Greeks what they mean when they use words
> like Gambros.
> Nobody asked me, but I am going to tell you anyway,
> with the hope somebody may actually listen.
>
> For the family of the BRIDE, GAMBROS is the new Husband.
> That means the NEW HUSBAND is GAMBROS to FATHER, MOTHER, BROTHERS and
> SISTERS
So, in other words, it can mean "son-in-law" or "brother-in-law", which is
what we already knew. But in the Byzantine time it can have a more distant
meaning: see below.
> For the Family of the NEW HUSBAND, the BRIDE is NYMPHY.
> for the parents of the New Husband, but KOUNIADOI (Plural
> of Kouniados) for the Brothers and Sisters of the New Husband.
> That is, the brother of the Bride, is Kouniados to the Brother of the
> Husband.
> (The brother of the Husband is Gambros to the Brother of the Bride)
>
> The parents of the New Husband and the parents of the Bride, refer to each
> other as SYNTEKNOS.
>
> That's The FOUR WORDS GREEKS USE to describe an In-Law relationship.
> Gambros, Nymphy, Kouniados, Synteknos.
>
> Any other words of interpretations have nothing to do with the
> Greek Language (old or New).
It is always amusing to read your definitive declaration about what is and
has always been Greek language. Again, I will lost my time to answer you.
The question is not what are the words used today in Greek, but what were
the words used in the Byzantine time, and the sense the words had at that
time, which is not necessarily the same sense that the same words can have
today.
For what is of "gambros", it was not limited in that time to the son-in-law
or the brother-in-law. To quote a famous example (between many others),
Andronikos III called Iôannčs Kantakouzčnos (later emperor John VI) his
"gambros" because Kantakouzčnos was married to Eirčnč Palaiologina Asanina,
whose father was a cousin of Andronikos' father, so a rather distant
relationship. Of course, Kantakouzčnos was not the emperor's son-in-law or
brother-in-law (but perhaps Dr Tsambourakis will argue the contrary...). The
word was sufficiently ambiguous to be sometimes completed: for example, I
record a reference to Michačl Taronitčs, brother-in-law of Alexios I, as
gambros "ep' adelphč" ("by the sister"), which makes the word more explicit.
Other words are simply no more in use. For example, you don't use today
"gunaichomaimos" to say brother-in-law (or to say anything other in fact),
and nevertheless I quote above a passage of Choniatčs, an authentic
Greek-speaker of the 12th century who used this word in that sense. On the
other hand, the words "kouniados", which you mentioned and which means today
brother-in-law, and "kouniada" (sister-in-law) are simply not Greek words:
these are Italian words ("cognato", "cognata"), adopted in modern times by
the Greek language (which, according to you, never changed since the time of
Christ). As such, they were obviously not used in the time of Nikčtas
Choniatčs (probably, he would have been desperate to know that some day the
Greeks would adopt such Barbarian words to express their familial
relationships).
Pierre
Andrey Frizyuk
I'm afraid I didn't put it clear enough. David the Builder asked
Sharukan's son Atraka/Otrok to help him against Muslims. About 50000
Kipchaks emigrated to Georgia, and David married the daughter of
Atraka. Kipchaks were of great help to Georgian kings in fighting off
attacks of Seljuks. AFAIC Artaka was a brother of Aspa, certainly not
the same person.
My principal point was to show that different explanations of
Kata/Aspa relation are possible. It's very probable chronologically
that Kata was the daughter of David IV from his 2nd marriage with a
Kipchak princess. On the other hand, several khans named Aspa
(presumably close relatives of Kata's mother) were chronicled at
exactly the same time. It certainly gives food to thought (if not
shatters the possible Bagratid connection to pieces).
All best, Andrey
Andrew S. Kalinkin
>
> > But John of Guant's father Edward III's matrilineal line, if correct
> > per roglo, includes a member of Palaiologos family. Interesting to
> > see that Edward appears to have had Bagratid Georgian/Armenian mtDNA:
> >
> > 1. Aspae Bagratid=Georgios Palaiologos Komnenodoukas, sebastos
> > +1167/1168 (son of Alexios Palaiologos)
> > 2. Eirene Palaiologina +1185=Emporer Isaak II Angelos
> > 3. Eirene Angelina 1180-1208=Philipp von Hohenstaufen, ca 1177-1208...
> <snip>
>
> History Writer suggested that imperial Palaiologi had a Bagratid
> blood. What a good History it would make!
>
> I don't care about these pitiable efforts to claim descent from
> Palaiologi and Bagratids much less understand them. The majority of
> Russian aristocrats had the blood of Makedonioi, Palaiologi, Komnenoi,
Really? Makedonioi through Vladimir's marriage to Anna, although they had
no known children ? And Palaiologi through Ivan III's marriage to Sophia
(descedants extinct in early 17th century) ? The Komnenoi are even worse.
The only claimed marriage is the 2nd of Yury Dolgoruky, but even this is
merely a guess without any supporting evidence.
> and what not thanks to Byzantine marriages of their forefathers and
> Bagratid marriages of themselves.
In 18th-19th centuries ? With only one exception (see below) I can't
recall any earlier Bagratid marriage for Russian princes.
> Unlike the Western Europeans,
> Russian rulers had no prejudices to marry into all the families of the
> West and East. That's why any Prince Kouragin or Droubetskoy may prove
> his descent from Arsacides and other contemporaries of Christ, which
> neither H.M. Queen Elisabeth nor the king of Spain can do.
Kouragin or Droubetskoy (personages of War and Peace) could claim anything,
but no real modern person, including Bagratids themself, can prove such
descent.
> To return to the subject of this thread. Judging by names, Kata was a
> Georgian princess, but Aspa was not. Aspa is 'horse' in Ossetian.
> Horse is a holy animal for people of the Steppe. IMHO, Aspa was the
> first cousin of Kata through her aunt Rusudan, who was married to
> David of Ossetia.
>
> But perhaps Ossetian princes of the 12th cent. were Bagratids
> themselves? If they were, then all the Rurikids were Bagratids too.
Really ? Even *all* !!!
> Mstislav the Great's brother Yaropolk,
Yaropolk's wife was "Yasynya", but not Osetian in modern sence. He brought
her from the expedition against Polovets settlements on Donets. It was
suggested that this settlements had some relict alanian population, but
any Bagratid connection for these "Osetians" is extremely unlikely.
> son Izyaslav,
Izyaslav Mstislavich had no Osetian wife
> grandson
> Yaroslav, and great grandson Mstislav of Chernigov were all married to
> Ossetian princesses.
Yaroslav Vladimirovich, Mstislav Svyatoslavich and Vsevolod Yurievich were
married to three sisters, and Mstislav's wife was once called "Yasynya" in
Ipatievan chronicle. That's all what is known of their origin (claim of
several later chronicles that they were daughters of nonexistent prince
Shvarn of Bohemia can be safely dsimissed). Aparently they should be persons
of some importance, but even to call them "princesses" is a bit too much,
and suggest a Bagratid origin for them is IMHO completely unsupported leap
of faith.
> Don't forget that the 1st wife of Izyaslav was
> Rusudani of Georgia.
Rusudan was Izyaslav's 2nd wife, and they were married only for half a year
(she arrived to Russia in spring 1154, and in November Izyaslav died).
> Among Mstislav's nephews, Andrey and Vsevolod
> were both married to Ossetians.
Osetian origin of Andrey's wife is merely a guess, based on very weak
evidence (the main argument for it is that one Anbal "Yasin" held a
prominent position at Andrey's court). The least unreliable of several
sources that mention Andrey's wife call her Bulgarian.
> Its enough to look at purely Caucasian
> stone carvings of their splendid Vladimir cathedrals to recall that
> ruling princes were half-Georgians themselves.
Even if Andrey and Vsevolod were married to Osetians, it won't make them
half-Georgians (or even half-Osetians).
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> You forget that Vladimir Monomakh was married to the daughter of Kuman
> khan Aspa in 1106, and Oleg of Chernigov married a daughter of
> (another?) Aspa the next year. The Sharukanids were a ruling Kipchak
> dynasty at the time, so chronologically Aspa ("Horse") should be a son
> of Sharukan ("Dragon"). David the Builder married Guranduht, a
> granddaughter of Sharukan, in 1118. If Katae was born from this union,
> she was about 18/20 when she married Alexios Komnenos (1106-42) as his
> 2nd wife. In this scenario Aspae (undoubtedly a daughter of Khan Aspa)
> also would be the 1st cousin of Katae of Georgia.
There are several errors here. First, the name of these Kuman khans is Aepa,
not Aspa. Second, neither Vladimir nor Oleg married their daughters; instead
they married these girls to their sons - Monomach to Yury (not yet Dolgoruky),
Oleg's son is not identified (it is often claimed, that it was Svyatoslav,
but without any good evidence). Both marriages happened at the same time -
in 1107/1108 winter. Finally, Kipchaks never had a united state and there is
no "the" Kipchak dinasty. Sharukanids were rulers of Don Horde, but there
were many other hordes with their own khans. In this case fathers of two Kuman
brides are clearly identified as Aepa son of Osen and Aepa son of Girgen. No
Aepa son of Sharukan.
Regards,
Andrew
Igor Sklar
> Could you indicate the identity of the Russian prince who is supposed to
> have wedded in the Palaiogos family (if of course it was more than a
> rhetorical way to speak)? I see no Russian prince who became the husband a
> Palaiologina before Ivan III...
I think the only remarkable characteristic of the family in question
is the fact that they were the last Eastern Roman Emperors. It's the
last marriages that matter, because it's through them that the claim
to Byzantium passed to other families. The fact is, that both
Palaiologos princesses that were marriable after the catastrophe of
1453 chose Russian princes as their husbands: Zoe became the wife of
Ivan III, and Maria - of prince Vasily Vereisky.
If you are interested in earlier periods, you may note that the
daughter of Michael VIII was married to khan Nogai, and the daughter
of Nogai was the ancestress of numerous princely families of Russia.
Surely you know that the daughter of Andronikos II (Maria) was married
to khan Toqta, whose daughter (also Maria) was the ancestress of
princely families Golitzine, Kourakine, etc...
> ...at a time when Western aristocracy had already
> badly intermarried with the Palaiologoi.
Could you in your turn indicate the identity of the Western European
prince who is supposed to have wedded in the imperial Palaiogos family
(if of course it was more than a rhetorical way to speak)? Surely you
do not regard princes of Bulgaria, Serbia, Lemnos, Lesbos, Cyprus,
etc. as Western Europeans?
I'm of opinion that Rurikids did not consider the Palaiologoi as equal
and worthy of marriage with such a noble and ancient family as
themselves. They certainly remembered that when Konstantinos
Porfyrogenetos wooed Olga of Kiev (or Helene, as he preferred to use
her Christian name) the Palaiologoi were junkmen at the outskirts of
Constantinople. :))
BTW, of Konstantinos' two granddaughters one (Theofania) was married
to Emperor Otto II, another (Anna Porfyrogeneta) - to St. Vladimir of
Kiev, the person whom you don't regard as royal. I see... With your
prejudices against the Rurikids, you take any comparison of Byzantine
and Russian rulers as offense.
Regards, Igor
Pierre Aronax
"Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com...
news:<3e627336$0$3824$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>...
>
> > Could you indicate the identity of the Russian prince who is supposed to
> > have wedded in the Palaiogos family (if of course it was more than a
> > rhetorical way to speak)? I see no Russian prince who became the husband
a
> > Palaiologina before Ivan III...
>
> I think the only remarkable characteristic of the family in question
> is the fact that they were the last Eastern Roman Emperors.
That's your opinion, good for you. Nevertheless, that is NOT about what we
were speaking: we were speaking of marriage of Russian princes with
Palaiologinai.
> It's the
> last marriages that matter, because it's through them that the claim
> to Byzantium passed to other families.
But we didn't discuss here of the claim to Byzantium, only of a filiation to
the Palaiologos through a marriage with one of their daughters.
> The fact is, that both
> Palaiologos princesses that were marriable after the catastrophe of
> 1453 chose Russian princes as their husbands: Zoe became the wife of
> Ivan III, and Maria - of prince Vasily Vereisky.
>
So, it seems that Russian princes can pretend to the hand of a Palaiologina
only when such marriage had become without any significance for others.
Anyway, that was not the question: you didn't say that Russian princes
married with the last Palaiologina, you said they were related with the
Palaiologoi more clearly and more anciently than the western aristocracy.
You said also that "the majority of Russian aristocrats" had the blood of
the Palaiologoi, but the posterity of the only two marriages of Russian
princes with Palaiologinai was extinct in the 17th century.
> If you are interested in earlier periods, you may note that the
> daughter of Michael VIII was married to khan Nogai, and the daughter
> of Nogai was the ancestress of numerous princely families of Russia.
We already discussed that. The question is: is the late hagiographical
source which says that reliable or not? For me, it is not a proven
filiation. And, anyway, that is NOT what we are speaking about here: we are
speaking about marriage between a Russian prince and a Palaiologina.
> Surely you know that the daughter of Andronikos II (Maria) was married
> to khan Toqta, whose daughter (also Maria) was the ancestress of
> princely families Golitzine, Kourakine, etc...
Same comment.
> > ...at a time when Western aristocracy had already
> > badly intermarried with the Palaiologoi.
>
> Could you in your turn indicate the identity of the Western European
> prince who is supposed to have wedded in the imperial Palaiogos family
> (if of course it was more than a rhetorical way to speak)? Surely you
> do not regard princes of Bulgaria, Serbia,
No, I don't regard them as Westerners
> Lemnos,
So there were "princes" of Lemnos in the time of the Byzantine? That's new
for me! In the real world, this island was given to the Gattilusio, a
Western family, by Mehmed II.
> Lesbos, Cyprus,
> etc. as Western Europeans?
This ones, yes, certainly: were they not Latins by language and Catholics by
faith, or am I wrong?
Anna Palaiologina married Niccolň Orsini (this one, I give you, was
converted to Orthodoxy but was nevertheless a Westerner) in 1318.
Maria Palaiologina married Francesco Gattilusio in 1355.
Zabia Palaiologina married Ilario Doria around 1390.
Helena Palaiologina married Jean II de Lusignan, king of Cyprus, in 1442.
(I don't count here of course, since we are speaking of Palaiologina married
to foreigners, all the Western princesses married to Palaiologoi, when the
first marriage with a Russian princess happened only in 1411.)
>
> I'm of opinion that Rurikids did not consider the Palaiologoi as equal
> and worthy of marriage with such a noble and ancient family as
> themselves.
Very amusing: that is certainly a revolutionary interpretation of the
relations between Byzantium and Orthodox Russia. For the Rurikids, the
emperor of Byzantium was the head of the oikoumčnč, the inhabited world, at
least until the Council of Florence, and they received their religious
leader from the Church of Constantinople. John VIII Palaiologos married with
a daughter of a great prince of Moscow, so he was certainly not considered
"unequall", and the Rurikids would have been very happy to have obtained an
imperial princess for their wife. In fact, they were so eager of that that
Ivan III was more than happy to obtain the hand of Zoč Palaiologina, the
daughter of a dethroned sovereign whose dowry had to be paid by the pope!
> They certainly remembered that when Konstantinos
> Porfyrogenetos wooed Olga of Kiev (or Helene, as he preferred to use
> her Christian name)
I don't know if he wooed her, but he didn't marry with her.
> the Palaiologoi were junkmen at the outskirts of
> Constantinople. :))
>
> BTW, of Konstantinos' two granddaughters one (Theofania)
It is not sure at all that Theophano was Kônstantinos' granddaughter. Only
that she was a "niece" of emperor John II, no more.
> was married
> to Emperor Otto II, another (Anna Porfyrogeneta) - to St. Vladimir of
> Kiev, the person whom you don't regard as royal.
Indeed, it was considered in Byzantium as a great misalliance for a
porphyrogenet, and Vladimir had to put great pressure on Basil II to obtain
actually her. They have no known descendancy. Anyway, this as nothing to do
with Russian princes descending from Palaiologan marriage, which was the
point I discussed. It seems that no Russian princes never married with a
Palaiologina before the end of the Empire. On the other hand, at least four
Westerners did, of which a king, a count and a lord. So, it seems to me that
your affirmation according to which all Russian aristocrats had Palaiologan
blood because their ancestors married since a long time with Palaiologan
princesses was a bit exaggerate. I hope you will agree with that. It seems
also that Palaiologian ancestors are rather less easier to trace in the
Russian aristocracy than in the Western aristocracy. I hope you will also
agree with that.
> I see... With your
> prejudices against the Rurikids, you take any comparison of Byzantine
> and Russian rulers as offense.
Rather as ridiculously nationalist. I wonder: are you not by chance some
kind of Russian version of Tsambourakis?
Pierre
Igor Sklar
> > blood. What a good History it would make!
> >
> > I don't care about these pitiable efforts to claim descent from
> > Palaiologi and Bagratids much less understand them. The majority of
> > Russian aristocrats had the blood of Makedonioi, Palaiologi, Komnenoi,
>
Nope. Ch. Settipani wrote in message <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A805892.FE636BF0%40club-internet.fr&output=gplain>:
"Constantine IX had a wife (name unknown) and a mistress (Maria), both
Skleraina, and his putative daughter [Anna Monomachina] is obviously
issued from one of them. The wife is the daughter of Basil Skleros and
of Pulcheria Argyropoulina, and the mistress is the sister of Romanos
Skleros and the paternal niece of Basil. It was the common grandfather
of these two women, the famous Romanos Skleros, who has married a
sister of Abou Taglib, emir of Aleppo. Romanos' grandmother, Gregoria,
was the great-granddaughter of Bardas, brother of EMPEROR BASIL I, who
claimed a descent from Alexander the Great. <...> You could find all
relevant references in J.-F. Vannier, Les Argyroi, Paris, 1974 and
J.-Cl. Cheynet, Pouvoir et Contestation a Byzance, Paris, 1990."
I have no time to list all the possible lines. Here is another one:
Emperor Romanos II -> Theofania of Byzantium (m. Emperor Otto II) ->
Mathilde of Germany (m. Ehrenfried of Lorraine) -> Richeza of Lorraine
(m. Mieszko II of Poland) -> -> -> Gertrud of Poland (m. Izyaslav I of
Kiev) // Agness of Poland (m. Mstislav II of Kiev) // Anastasia of
Poland (m. Vsevolod III of Kiev) -> innumerable Rurikids
> ...although they had no known children ?
What about Dobronega?
> And Palaiologi through Ivan III's marriage to Sophia...
Nope. See my previous post.
> ...(descedants extinct in early 17th century)?
Why, are you so sure that Simeon Bekbulatovich had no daughters?
> The Komnenoi are even worse.
To say nothing about the wife of Dolgoruky, Barbara Komnene (the
daughter of Alexios I and the wife of Svyatopolk II) was the
ancestress of numerous Turov princes (Ostrogski, Czetwertinski, etc.)
through her son and others through her daughter Zbyslava of Poland.
>
> > and what not thanks to Byzantine marriages of their forefathers and
> > Bagratid marriages of themselves.
>
> In 18th-19th centuries ?
Yes.
> With only one exception (see below) I can't recall any earlier Bagratid
> marriage for Russian princes.
I can: Thamar the Great (quite unimportant personage, eh?) and Georgiy
of Gorodets.
> > Unlike the Western Europeans,
> > Russian rulers had no prejudices to marry into all the families of the
> > West and East. That's why any Prince Kouragin or Droubetskoy may prove
> > his descent from Arsacides and other contemporaries of Christ, which
> > neither H.M. Queen Elisabeth nor the king of Spain can do.
>
> Kouragin or Droubetskoy (personages of War and Peace) could claim anything,
> but no real modern person, including Bagratids themself, can prove such
> descent.
Are you kidding? Perhaps 'prove' is not the word... "be reasonably
certain of" is better.
>
> > To return to the subject of this thread. Judging by names, Kata was a
> > Georgian princess, but Aspa was not. Aspa is 'horse' in Ossetian.
> > Horse is a holy animal for people of the Steppe. IMHO, Aspa was the
> > first cousin of Kata through her aunt Rusudan, who was married to
> > David of Ossetia.
> >
> > son Izyaslav,
>
> Izyaslav Mstislavich had no Osetian wife
Sorry, I don't know where Abazan is. Perhaps you may help to improve
my knowledge of ancient geography.
> > grandson
> > Yaroslav, and great grandson Mstislav of Chernigov were all married to
> > Ossetian princesses.
>
> Yaroslav Vladimirovich, Mstislav Svyatoslavich and Vsevolod Yurievich were
> married to three sisters, and Mstislav's wife was once called "Yasynya" in
> Ipatievan chronicle. That's all what is known of their origin (claim of
> several later chronicles that they were daughters of nonexistent prince
> Shvarn of Bohemia can be safely dsimissed). Aparently they should be persons
> of some importance, but even to call them "princesses" is a bit too much...
I cannot see your logic. Georgiy married queen Thamar, Izyaslav -
Rusudan of Georgia, but these three princes managed to find some
commoners? ...and three sisters? This romantic story is surely unique
in the history of medieval European royalty. :}
> and suggest a Bagratid origin for them is IMHO completely unsupported leap
> of faith.
What a pity Rafal Prinke is not around! It was his favourite theory...
The 12th century was the only time when Ossetian rulers were prominent
enough to regularly marry into the royal houses of Georgia and Rus. (I
don't know a single Ossetian marriage into these houses either before
or since that time.) Georgians themselves explain it by making
Ossetian princes of the 12th cent. a cadet branch of the Bagratids...
> > Its enough to look at purely Caucasian
> > stone carvings of their splendid Vladimir cathedrals to recall that
> > ruling princes were half-Georgians themselves.
>
> Even if Andrey and Vsevolod were married to Osetians, it won't make them
> half-Georgians (or even half-Osetians).
IIRC, most of the carving was done during the reign of Vsevolod's
sons, though it's not my principal point.
Regards, Igor
Pierre Aronax
"Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com...
news:<ebb42403.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message
news:<5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> Nope. Ch. Settipani wrote in message
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A805892.FE636BF0%40club-internet.fr&o
utput=gplain>:
>
> "Constantine IX had a wife (name unknown) and a mistress (Maria), both
> Skleraina, and his putative daughter [Anna Monomachina] is obviously
> issued from one of them. The wife is the daughter of Basil Skleros and
> of Pulcheria Argyropoulina, and the mistress is the sister of Romanos
> Skleros and the paternal niece of Basil. It was the common grandfather
> of these two women, the famous Romanos Skleros, who has married a
> sister of Abou Taglib, emir of Aleppo. Romanos' grandmother, Gregoria,
> was the great-granddaughter of Bardas, brother of EMPEROR BASIL I, who
> claimed a descent from Alexander the Great. <...>
Here a phrase of Christian Settipani has been curiously omitted, so I
restore it: "But the descent is fictional of course."
> You could find all
> relevant references in J.-F. Vannier, Les Argyroi, Paris, 1974 and
> J.-Cl. Cheynet, Pouvoir et Contestation a Byzance, Paris, 1990."
>
> I have no time to list all the possible lines. Here is another one:
> Emperor Romanos II -> Theofania of Byzantium (m. Emperor Otto II)
Here your line is cut, since there is no source which says that Theophano
was a daughter of Romanos II. We only know she was a niece of John I
Tzimiskès.
> ->
> Mathilde of Germany (m. Ehrenfried of Lorraine) -> Richeza of Lorraine
> (m. Mieszko II of Poland) -> -> -> Gertrud of Poland (m. Izyaslav I of
> Kiev) // Agness of Poland (m. Mstislav II of Kiev) // Anastasia of
> Poland (m. Vsevolod III of Kiev) -> innumerable Rurikids
But through an alliance of a Byzantine princess with a Western emperor:
difficult to take that as an example of the Byzantine marriages of the
Rurikids, or am I wrong somewhere?
> > ...although they had no known children ?
>
> What about Dobronega?
>
> > And Palaiologi through Ivan III's marriage to Sophia...
>
> Nope. See my previous post.
>
> > ...(descedants extinct in early 17th century)?
>
> Why, are you so sure that Simeon Bekbulatovich had no daughters?
The question is rather to you: do you know any such daughter?
> > The Komnenoi are even worse.
>
> To say nothing about the wife of Dolgoruky, Barbara Komnene (the
> daughter of Alexios I and the wife of Svyatopolk II)
<...>
Alexis I Komnènos had no daughter named Barbara (and it would be a rather
strange name for a Byzantine princess).
> > > and what not thanks to Byzantine marriages of their forefathers and
> > > Bagratid marriages of themselves.
> >
> > In 18th-19th centuries ?
>
> Yes.
>
> > With only one exception (see below) I can't recall any earlier Bagratid
> > marriage for Russian princes.
>
> I can: Thamar the Great (quite unimportant personage, eh?) and Georgiy
> of Gorodets.
Thamar had no posterity by her first marriage.
> > > Unlike the Western Europeans,
> > > Russian rulers had no prejudices to marry into all the families of the
> > > West and East. That's why any Prince Kouragin or Droubetskoy may prove
> > > his descent from Arsacides and other contemporaries of Christ, which
> > > neither H.M. Queen Elisabeth nor the king of Spain can do.
> >
> > Kouragin or Droubetskoy (personages of War and Peace) could claim
anything,
> > but no real modern person, including Bagratids themself, can prove such
> > descent.
>
> Are you kidding? Perhaps 'prove' is not the word... "be reasonably
> certain of" is better.
No, he is right: this kind of DFA are not proven at all.
Pierre
Todd A. Farmerie
> kalinki...@mail.ru (Andrew S. Kalinkin) wrote in message news:<ebb42403.03030...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> Nope. Ch. Settipani wrote in message <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A805892.FE636BF0%40club-internet.fr&output=gplain>:
>
> "Constantine IX had a wife (name unknown) and a mistress (Maria), both
> Skleraina, and his putative daughter [Anna Monomachina] is obviously
> issued from one of them. The wife is the daughter of Basil Skleros and
> of Pulcheria Argyropoulina, and the mistress is the sister of Romanos
> Skleros and the paternal niece of Basil. It was the common grandfather
> of these two women, the famous Romanos Skleros, who has married a
> sister of Abou Taglib, emir of Aleppo.
As analyzed thoroughly by Khalid Yahya Blankinship, this marriage
is not supported by the data - only that Romanus or one of his
siblings (male or female) married Abou Taglib or one of his
siblings. It is much more likely, considering muslim law and
culture, that it was a sister of Romanus that married into the
emir's family, and not vice versa.
> Romanos' grandmother, Gregoria,
> was the great-granddaughter of Bardas, brother of EMPEROR BASIL I, who
> claimed a descent from Alexander the Great. <...> You could find all
> relevant references in J.-F. Vannier, Les Argyroi, Paris, 1974 and
> J.-Cl. Cheynet, Pouvoir et Contestation a Byzance, Paris, 1990."
>
> I have no time to list all the possible lines. Here is another one:
> Emperor Romanos II -> Theofania of Byzantium (m. Emperor Otto II) ->
All we know is that Otto's wife was niece of Emperor John. This
is one possible solution, while the alternative that has been
proposed has no (immediate) Macedonian ancestry (although, IIRC,
it does have Skleros connection, so perhaps a descent like that
above would be valid, under this latter proposal).
> Mathilde of Germany (m. Ehrenfried of Lorraine) -> Richeza of Lorraine
> (m. Mieszko II of Poland) -> -> -> Gertrud of Poland (m. Izyaslav I of
> Kiev) // Agness of Poland (m. Mstislav II of Kiev) // Anastasia of
> Poland (m. Vsevolod III of Kiev) -> innumerable Rurikids
This descent, were it valid, would also be shared by every
English king from Edward I, and every French king from the same
time (basically every descendant of Alfonso II, King of Aragon).
>>...although they had no known children ?
>
> What about Dobronega?
By all accounts, not daughter of Anna.
taf
Andrey Frizyuk
> > That's why any Prince Kouragin or Droubetskoy may prove
> > his descent from Arsacides and other contemporaries of Christ, which
> > neither H.M. Queen Elisabeth nor the king of Spain can do.
>
> Kouragin or Droubetskoy (personages of War and Peace) could claim anything...
And they did: 'Prince Andrew was looking at a large gilt frame, new to
him, containing the genealogical tree of the Princes Bolkonski,
opposite which hung another such frame with a badly-painted portrait
(evidently by the hand of the artist beloning to the estate) of a
ruling prince, in a crown - an alleged descendant of Rurik and
ancestor of the Bolkonskis.' (book I, chapter XV)
Tolstoy's secretary wrote that "the genealogical tree of Princes
Volkonski had been preserved in Yasnaya Polyana for a long time after
the death of Tolstoy's grandfather. St. Michael of Chernigov, ancestor
of the Volkonskis, holds in his hand a tree, leaves of which are
inscribed with names of his descendants."
All best, Andrey
Andrey Frizyuk
Indeed. I already had a chance to profess that I know nothing about
the early Rurikids. I remember having read however that Aepa is
nonsense in both Turkic and Iranian languages (Kipchaks were a complex
ethnos). It is speculated that Aepa is a distortion of copyist, and
that the real name of both khans was either Chepa or Aspa.
OK, the mysterious Aspae seems to be of Ossetian extraction. But the
issue of its Bagratid ancestry remains open.
Andrey
Igor Sklar
> "Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > The fact is, that both
> > Palaiologos princesses that were marriable after the catastrophe of
> > 1453 chose Russian princes as their husbands: Zoe became the wife of
> > Ivan III, and Maria - of prince Vasily Vereisky.
>
> So, it seems that Russian princes can pretend to the hand of a Palaiologina
> only when such marriage had become without any significance for others.
For whom? For petty rulers of Lemnos, Lesbos, Cephallenia, etc. that
had been swept down by the Ottoman power?
Alliance with the ruling Palaiologoi (arguably Emperors of the
smallest empire in history of the world) had no political significance
for the Rurikids (the Palaiologoi not being a political power to be
reckoned with) until the time when Constantinople fell and Moscow
instantly inspired to be acknowledged as its rightful heir. That's why
the marriage with Zoe was so important for Ivan: it legitimized his
claims to Byzantine legacy. If Constantinople didn't fall or there was
anyone still styling himself 'Emperor of the East', Ivan wouldn't care
a damn about this ugly mendicant princess.
> > If you are interested in earlier periods, you may note that the
> > daughter of Michael VIII was married to khan Nogai, and the daughter
> > of Nogai was the ancestress of numerous princely families of Russia.
>
> We already discussed that. The question is: is the late hagiographical
> source which says that reliable or not? For me, it is not a proven
> filiation. And, anyway, that is NOT what we are speaking about here: we are
> speaking about marriage between a Russian prince and a Palaiologina.
> So, it seems to me that
> your affirmation according to which all Russian aristocrats had Palaiologan
> blood because their ancestors married since a long time with Palaiologan
> princesses was a bit exaggerate. I hope you will agree with that.
It's very hard to discuss anything with you, because every time you
answer something like 'We are discussing this', or 'that's not about
what We are speaking'. Please reread my original post and see what I
was speaking about IN FACT. I never said anything like "the Rurikids
married with the Palaiologoi before 1411", because it just wouldn't be
true. I said that "the majority (sic!) of Russian aristocrats had the
blood of the Palaiologoi", and may repeat it thousand times. You may
choose anyone who really belongs to Russian hereditary aristocracy,
and chances are high that I'll establish his descent from Nogai/Toqta
and hence from Michael VIII (through 2 marriages in many cases, not
4/8 as in case of English kings).
> It seems
> also that Palaiologian ancestors are rather less easier to trace in the
> Russian aristocracy than in the Western aristocracy. I hope you will also
> agree with that.
I will not, because the 1st Russian monarch with a Palaiologian
descent ascended the throne in 1462, whilst the 1st English monarch
with the same ascendancy appeared some 200 years later.
> > Could you in your turn indicate the identity of the Western European
> > prince who is supposed to have wedded in the imperial Palaiogos family
> > (if of course it was more than a rhetorical way to speak)? Surely you
> > do not regard princes of <...> Lesbos, Cyprus, etc. as Western Europeans?
>
> This ones, yes, certainly: were they not Latins by language and Catholics by
> faith, or am I wrong?
They had been living for several generations in Eastern Europe, among
Orthodox populace, am I wrong? Moldavians are also Latins by language,
Poles are Catholics by faith, but they are considered Eastern/Central
Europeans because they live in the eastern/central part of this
continent.
> > I'm of opinion that Rurikids did not consider the Palaiologoi as equal
> > and worthy of marriage with such a noble and ancient family as
> > themselves.
>
> Very amusing: that is certainly a revolutionary interpretation of the
> relations between Byzantium and Orthodox Russia. For the Rurikids, the
> emperor of Byzantium was the head of the oikoumčnč, the inhabited world, at
> least until the Council of Florence, and they received their religious
> leader from the Church of Constantinople.
I will not joke with you any more, since you take it all in earnest.
If you look at the original post, you will see that all I was trying
to say is that the Rurikids were much more ancient and noble family
than the Palaiologoi.
> John VIII Palaiologos married with
> a daughter of a great prince of Moscow, so he was certainly not considered
> "unequall", and the Rurikids would have been very happy to have obtained an
> imperial princess for their wife. In fact, they were so eager of that that
> Ivan III was more than happy to obtain the hand of Zoč Palaiologina, the
> daughter of a dethroned sovereign whose dowry had to be paid by the pope!
Pope's legate who organised the marriage wrote to Ivan III that Zoe
declined flattering proposals of a French king and a duke of Milan.
Are you jealous because of that? Come on, Capetians did very well
without this ugly princess!
> > BTW, of Konstantinos' two granddaughters one (Theofania) was married
> > to Emperor Otto II, another (Anna Porfyrogeneta) - to St. Vladimir of
> > Kiev, the person whom you don't regard as royal.
>
> Indeed, it was considered in Byzantium as a great misalliance for a
> porphyrogenet, and Vladimir had to put great pressure on Basil II to obtain
> actually her.
No wonder: it would be the 1st marriage with a pagan ruler in the
history of the dynasty (if not the Empire)...
> It seems that no Russian princes never married with a Palaiologina before
> the end of the Empire.
I never denied that. It seems that no Western European sovereign (I do
not include Eastern European princelets into this category) ever
married into the Palaiologoi (either before or after the end of the
Empire) for the same reason - because "Byzantium" (rather
Constantinople) of the Palaiologoi was a local power extremely
isolated from the outside world, with great pretensions but no vital
resources to support them.
> > I see... With your
> > prejudices against the Rurikids, you take any comparison of Byzantine
> > and Russian rulers as offense.
>
> Rather as ridiculously nationalist. I wonder: are you not by chance some
> kind of Russian version of Tsambourakis?
Sorry, I'm not a Russian but Belarusian, as my surname clearly
implies. I'm just a bit annoyed by your prejudices against the early
Rurikids (which are no more Russian for that matter than Ukrainian or
Belarusian).
Regards, Igor
George Tsambourakis
> what we already knew. But in the Byzantine time it can have a more distant
> meaning: see below.
That's the case for the family of Bride ONLY. So you just can not
generalised it.
> The question is not what are the words used today in Greek, but what were
> the words used in the Byzantine time,
There is NO difference between now and then.
What you perhaps are trying to say, that the word was incorrectly used by
people who perhaps did not know the full meaning of the word.
> For what is of "gambros", it was not limited in that time to the
son-in-law
> or the brother-in-law.
Again, You generalised it, you just simply could not accept that you are
wrong.. Gambros is a word that could only be used by the close family of the
Bride.
Your statement that it translates "Son-In-Law" or "Brother-In-Law" is wrong.
Gambros is a word used ONLY by the family of the Bride.
> To quote a famous example (between many others), Andronikos III
> called Iôannčs Kantakouzčnos (later emperor John VI) his "gambros"
> because Kantakouzčnos was married to Eirčnč Palaiologina Asanina,
> whose father was a cousin of Andronikos' father, so a rather distant
> relationship.
I have to take your word for it off course, If the he said that than he was
wrong or he used the word very loosely.
Two wrong do not make one right.
> brother-in-law, and "kouniada" (sister-in-law) are simply not Greek words:
> these are Italian words ("cognato", "cognata"), adopted in modern times by
> the Greek language.
Why you can not accept the fact that you are wrong? Firstly, we are talking
about the East Roman Empire, and Latin was next to Greek a commonly spoken
language.
Kouniados and Kouniada are used for hundreds of years.
You will find these words in over 600 year old wills.
> Michačl Taronitčs, brother-in-law of Alexios I, as
> gambros "ep' adelphč" ("by the sister"), which makes the word more
explicit.
Please explain why this prove you right.
Michael was Alexios's "Gambros". He married His sister.
Alexios was from the family of the Bride.
Each Historian uses words he likes to describe events or relationships.
The fact that some historians did not use certain words does not mean that
these words did not exists, but rather means
a. that the historian did not normally used these words,
b. did not feel comfortable using this words
c. the words were not popular or used at the time.
d. were considered are in-appropriate to be use.
> "gunaichomaimos"
I have my doubts about the words you use, because the word above does not
exists and never existed.
"Gynaiko-" is the first part of the word and not "Gunaicho" which means
nothing in Greek (Old and New).
The second word "Maimos" is totally unknown to me. Does it exist?????
Renia
I asked my Greek teacher about this this evening. (His degree is in
linguistics and Greek literature.) He says that from about 1974, modern
Greek was standardised and modern Greeks can understand medieval Greek
texts. He says that no way has modern Greek changed from medieval Greek
to the same extent that modern English has changed from medieval English.
Renia
Renia
> Your observations about the reference to the conspirator Geôrgios
> Palaiologos as "kata genos" to the emperor could well be significant,
> but, as you say in your earlier message, it would be nice to hear what a
> "specialist of Choniatès vocabulary" says about "kata genos".
Kata means "against". For example, katangelia means (among other things)
annulment and katangello means "bring a charge, denounce".
>
> -- Don Stone
>
Renia
use.
>
>
>>"gunaichomaimos"
>
> I have my doubts about the words you use, because the word above does not
> exists and never existed.
>
> "Gynaiko-" is the first part of the word and not "Gunaicho" which means
> nothing in Greek (Old and New).
> The second word "Maimos" is totally unknown to me. Does it exist?????
Does he mean gynaikadelfos (brother-in-law)?
Gynaika, of course, means woman or wife.
Renia
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> Skleraina, and his putative daughter [Anna Monomachina] is obviously
> issued from one of them. The wife is the daughter of Basil Skleros and
> of Pulcheria Argyropoulina, and the mistress is the sister of Romanos
> Skleros and the paternal niece of Basil. It was the common grandfather
> of these two women, the famous Romanos Skleros, who has married a
> sister of Abou Taglib, emir of Aleppo. Romanos' grandmother, Gregoria,
> was the great-granddaughter of Bardas, brother of EMPEROR BASIL I, who
> claimed a descent from Alexander the Great. <...> You could find all
> relevant references in J.-F. Vannier, Les Argyroi, Paris, 1974 and
> J.-Cl. Cheynet, Pouvoir et Contestation a Byzance, Paris, 1990."
The only thing we can be reasonably certain is that Vsevolod's first wife
and Vladimir Monomach's mother was a "Monomacha". Even the claim that she
was emperor's daughter (and not niece, cousin, etc.) is merely an unsopported
assumption. But to claim that she "obviously" was his daughter by a specific
woman (well, two women) is beyond any reason.
BTW, why "Anna" ? Of various names assigned to her, this gets only third
place (after Maria and Anastasia) at best.
> To say nothing about the wife of Dolgoruky, Barbara Komnene (the
> daughter of Alexios I and the wife of Svyatopolk II) was the
> ancestress of numerous Turov princes (Ostrogski, Czetwertinski, etc.)
> through her son and others through her daughter Zbyslava of Poland.
As Pierre Aronax already mentioned, Alexios I never had a daughter Barbara.
> > With only one exception (see below) I can't recall any earlier Bagratid
> > marriage for Russian princes.
>
> I can: Thamar the Great (quite unimportant personage, eh?) and Georgiy
> of Gorodets.
Sorry. As we discussed Bagratid blood among Russian noblity I thought only
about Georgian princesses who came to Russia, not other way around. So it
makes two. Both marriages were shortlived and both without posterity.
> > Izyaslav Mstislavich had no Osetian wife
>
> Sorry, I don't know where Abazan is. Perhaps you may help to improve
> my knowledge of ancient geography.
"Abazan" is Abkhazia, and in 12th century context it is an alternative
name for Georgia. So we are speaking here about the same Rusudan that
was already mentioned.
> > > grandson
> > > Yaroslav, and great grandson Mstislav of Chernigov were all married to
> > > Ossetian princesses.
> >
> > Yaroslav Vladimirovich, Mstislav Svyatoslavich and Vsevolod Yurievich were
> > married to three sisters, and Mstislav's wife was once called "Yasynya" in
> > Ipatievan chronicle. That's all what is known of their origin (claim of
> > several later chronicles that they were daughters of nonexistent prince
> > Shvarn of Bohemia can be safely dsimissed). Aparently they should be persons
> > of some importance, but even to call them "princesses" is a bit too much...
>
> I cannot see your logic. Georgiy married queen Thamar, Izyaslav -
> Rusudan of Georgia, but these three princes managed to find some
> commoners? ...and three sisters? This romantic story is surely unique
> in the history of medieval European royalty. :}
I am not sure what the word "commoner" supposed to mean in 12th century
context, so probably better not to use it. As for logic - there is logic
here, but you should look at exact circumstanses of these specific
marriages, not engage in generalizations.
Start with Vsevolod. Note that he married BEFORE murder of Andrey. By that
time he was more or less a nobody - a very minor princeling without his own
domain and almost without any prospects of advancement. Why would King of
Osetia want to marry off his daughter to such a minor figure is sich faraway
land ? Was there a shortage of nobodies in Osetia ? Well, I won't claim that
this is absolutely impossible, if we knew that this indeed happened some
explanation could be found. But we know only that Vsevolod's wife was of
Osetian nationality, and I see no reason to suggest that she must be king's
daughter.
Now about Yaroslav and Mstislav. In both cases chronists stress that their
wife was "svest" (sister-in-law) of Vsevolod. So the relationship of these
girls to Vsevolod made them desirable brides, not their ancestry. Yaroslav
(himself a nobody) based his entire political career on this relationship,
and marriage of Mstislav was part of a peace settlement between his father
and Vsevolod. At that time (late 1170s - early 1180s) Vsevolod had no
daughters, sisters or nieces of marriageable age, so he had no choice but
to use his wife's relatives on marriage market. Again, the motives of
Yaroslav and Mstislav are clear, the motives of Vsevolod are clear, but
what interest King of Osetia (assuming that these girls were his daughters)
could have in these marriages ? Why did he send two more daughters to Russia
and allowed Vsevolod to use them for his (Vsevolod's) advantage ? The story
makes much more sence if they belonged to a minor family, who unexpectedly
won a million in marriage lottery and now tried to get out of this relationship
as much as possible.
> > and suggest a Bagratid origin for them is IMHO completely unsupported leap
> > of faith.
>
> What a pity Rafal Prinke is not around! It was his favourite theory...
It wasn't much of a theory. Rafal mentioned this as a tempting possibility,
and I have no problem with it, although don't think it is very likely. But an
attempt to turn such guess into "fact" is quite different thing.
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> "Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > daughter of Michael VIII was married to khan Nogai, and the daughter
> > of Nogai was the ancestress of numerous princely families of Russia.
>
> We already discussed that. The question is: is the late hagiographical
> source which says that reliable or not? For me, it is not a proven
> filiation. And, anyway, that is NOT what we are speaking about here: we are
> speaking about marriage between a Russian prince and a Palaiologina.
Missed this discussion when it was running. No I would like to add just one
comment (hope that it isn't too late). I think that from Andrey's account
everyone got an impression that "Life of St. Feodor" actually say that he
married a daughter of Nogay. In fact it isn't; it only say that Feodor married
a daughter of Tatar "tzar" (ruler). His identification as Nogay is merely a
guess. It is also often claimed that Feodor instead married a daughter of khan
Mengu-Timur, with the same lack of evidence.
BTW, when in late 13th century a war started in Russia between Great Prince
Dmitry Alexandrovich (an ally and supporter of Nogay), and his brother Andrey
(who was backed by khan Tokhta, Nogay's rival) Feodor joined the anti-Nogay
camp. This doesn't prove that he was not married to Nogay's daughter, but
still speaks against such possibility.
> > Surely you know that the daughter of Andronikos II (Maria) was married
> > to khan Toqta, whose daughter (also Maria) was the ancestress of
> > princely families Golitzine, Kourakine, etc...
>
> Same comment.
This was discussed in great detail. Finally Rafal tracked the claim that
Narimund married Tokhta's daughter to a statement made by a certain polish
genealogist in a work that aparently never was published, so we don't know
what evidence (if any) he had.
And of course there is an obvious logical flaw in Igor's chain of reasons -
Tokhta (or Nogay) was married a Palaiologina, he had a daughter who was an
ancestor of this or that Russian family, therefore these families have
Palaiologos blood.
> > They certainly remembered that when Konstantinos
> > Porfyrogenetos wooed Olga of Kiev (or Helene, as he preferred to use
> > her Christian name)
>
> I don't know if he wooed her, but he didn't marry with her.
If Igor bothered to look at the original story, he would discover that it
wasn't Konstantinos Porphyrogenites who wooed Olga. Instead she was wooed
by emperor John Tzimiskes. This could give some insight about the value of
this legend as a historical source.
Regards,
Andrew
George Tsambourakis
equivalents for Kouniados (Gynaikadelfos=wife's brother) and Kouniada
(Gynaikadelfi=wife's sitster).
Both words are not very old and are not commonly used.
Dr. George Tsambourakis
343 Major's Line Road
Tooborac, Victoria 3522, Australia
eac...@ozemail.com.au
"Renia" <Re...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:3E6413C6...@otenet.gr...
Igor Sklar
> "Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > kalinki...@mail.ru (Andrew S. Kalinkin) wrote in message
> news:<ebb42403.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message
> news:<5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
>
> > Nope. Ch. Settipani wrote in message
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A805892.FE636BF0%40club-internet.fr&o
> utput=gplain>:
> >
> > "Constantine IX had a wife (name unknown) and a mistress (Maria), both
> > Skleraina, and his putative daughter [Anna Monomachina] is obviously
> > issued from one of them. The wife is the daughter of Basil Skleros and
> > of Pulcheria Argyropoulina, and the mistress is the sister of Romanos
> > Skleros and the paternal niece of Basil. It was the common grandfather
> > of these two women, the famous Romanos Skleros, who has married a
> > sister of Abou Taglib, emir of Aleppo. Romanos' grandmother, Gregoria,
> > was the great-granddaughter of Bardas, brother of EMPEROR BASIL I, who
> > claimed a descent from Alexander the Great. <...>
>
> Here a phrase of Christian Settipani has been curiously omitted, so I
> restore it: "But the descent is fictional of course."
The descent from Alexander the Great to Basil I? Surely it is.
> But through an alliance of a Byzantine princess with a Western emperor:
> difficult to take that as an example of the Byzantine marriages of the
> Rurikids, or am I wrong somewhere?
Every Byzantine scholar knows of Hugues Capet's letter to
Constantinople, where he humbly asks Emperor's permission to marry his
son Robert to Anna Porphyrogeneta. He was refused, Anna married St.
Vladimir. Is this a reason for your arrogance towards Rurikids?
Learning their lesson well, Capetians found more equal union next time
and married their next king to Anna of Kiev. You may remember that
Henri was illiterate and could not even sign the wedding charter
(unlike his spouse). I can understand Basil II. Who wants to have a
brother-in-law who cannot write his own name? :)
> >
> > To say nothing about the wife of Dolgoruky, Barbara Komnene (the
> > daughter of Alexios I and the wife of Svyatopolk II)
> <...>
> Alexis I Komnčnos had no daughter named Barbara (and it would be a rather
> strange name for a Byzantine princess.
Varvara (that's her Russian name) was the 1st child of Alexios and
Irene Dukaina. She was born about 1079, married Svyatopolk in 1103 and
died in 1124. Varvara was instrumental in securing the alliance of her
younger brother Andronikos with Irina Volodarevna of Halicz. According
to Loringhoven's edition of the ES (II: 90) Svyatopolk's children were
all either by his first wife (unknown) or his third wife (Barbara
Komnena).
The Byzantine wife of Yury Dolgoruky is no legend too. Everyone knows
that foreign princesses returned to lands of their forebears in time
of need: Hungarian princesses - to Hungary (e.g., Anna Lanka of
Tmutarakan), Polish princesses - to Poland, etc. I can't see any
reason why Yury's widow should have taken her children with her to
Byzantium, if she were a Russian or Kipchak princess. But you will
believe it only if her corpse is exhumed, and some kind of genetical
expertise is held. By the way, a portrait of Yury's 2nd wife is
preserved in the Kideksha church near Suzdal. It's interesting to
compare it with portraits of contemporary Komnenoi.
Regards, Igor
Igor Sklar
>
> >>...although they had no known children ?
> >
> > What about Dobronega?
>
> By all accounts, not daughter of Anna.
Hmm... I wish I were as certain as you. All Polish sources (as summed
up by Jan Dlugosz 1455-80) regard Dobronega/Maria as the daughter of
Anna. I may agree that Gostynska chronicle is too late, but what's
wrong with Kronika Wielkopolska? It is stated there that Kasimir
married Maria (also known as Dobronega), the daughter of Russian
prince Roman. There was no Russian prince called Roman, but the father
of Anna was Romanos II. Perhaps Byzantines were called something like
'Romans' in Polish?
No other mother for Dobronega was suggested by medieval authors. But
then there appear modern historians burning with ambitions to make
reputation by rewriting history. They declare that chronology is
impossible. Why? Isn't it probable that the Polish marriage was the
2nd for Dobronega, and she was already a widow of some other prince?
BTW Boris and Gleb were mentioned by near-contemporary sources as
children of Anna (though it is somewhat dubious, I agree), and
Predslava chronologically should have been born from this marriage
too.
Regards, Igor
Igor Sklar
> > your affirmation according to which all Russian aristocrats had Palaiologan
> > blood because their ancestors married since a long time with Palaiologan
> > princesses was a bit exaggerate. I hope you will agree with that.
>
> It's very hard to discuss anything with you, because every time you
> answer something like 'We are discussing this', or 'that's not about
> what We are speaking'. Please reread my original post and see what I
> was speaking about IN FACT. I never said anything like "the Rurikids
> married with the Palaiologoi before 1411", because it just wouldn't be
> true. I said that "the majority (sic!) of Russian aristocrats had the
> blood of the Palaiologoi", and may repeat it thousand times. You may
> choose anyone who really belongs to Russian hereditary aristocracy,
> and chances are high that I'll establish his descent from Nogai/Toqta
> and hence from Michael VIII (through 2 marriages in many cases, not
> 4/8 as in case of English kings).
>
> > It seems
> > also that Palaiologian ancestors are rather less easier to trace in the
> > Russian aristocracy than in the Western aristocracy. I hope you will also
> > agree with that.
Since Mr. Aronax haven't found time to specify the person Palaiologian
descent of whom he wants to be displayed, I have to choose this person
myself. Living in St. Petersburg, I propose to elucidate Byzantine
descent of professor Gagarin, who is currently a chairman of St.
Petersburg Nobility Association (born 1934, elected Marshal of St.
Petersburg Nobility 1994).
Prince Andrey Petrovich Gagarin = Tatiana Valentinovna Yakovleva;
Pr Pyotr Andreievich Gagarin = Varvara Vasilievna Sheshina;
Pss Maria Dmitrievna Obolenskaya = Pr Andrey Grigorievich Gagarin;
Pss Daria Petrovna Trubetskaya = Pr Dmitry Petrovich Obolensky;
Pr Pyotr Petrovich Trubetskoy = Elisaveta Nikolaievna Bakhmeteva;
Pss Daria Alexandrovna Gruzinskaya = Pr Pyotr Sergeievich Trubetskoy;
Pr Alexander Bakarovich Gruzinsky = Pss Daria Alexandrovna Menshikova;
Pr Bakar Vakhtangovich Bagrationi = Pss Anna Georgievna Eristavi;
Vakhtang VI, the last king of Kartli = Pss Rusudani of Circassia;
Pss Tuta of Guria =1672 Prince Levan of Kartli (Shah-Kuli-Khan);
Kaihosro I of Guria (+1658) = Pss Hvaramze Goshadze;
Vakhtang I of Guria (+1587) =1583 Pss Thamar Dadiani;
Rostom I of Guria (+1536) = Pss Tinatini of Imeretia;
Mamia III of Guria (+1534);
Giorgi I of Guria (+1512);
Kahabar II of Guria (+1483);
Mamia II of Guria = Eudokia Megale Komnene;
David I of Trapezunt = Helene Kantakuzene;
Alexios IV of Trapezunt = Theodora Kantakuzene;
Manuel III of Trapezunt = Eudokia Bagrationi;
Alexios III of Trapezunt = Theodora Kanatakuzene;
Basil I of Trapezunt = Irene Palaiologina;
Alexios II of Trapezunt = Jijaq of Samatzkhe;
Ioannes II of Trapezunt = Eudokia Palaiologina (dau of Michael VIII)
Manuel I of Trapezunt = Rusudani Bagrationi;
Alexios I of Trapezunt = Theodora Axuchina;
Manuel Komnenos = Rusudani Bagrationi;
Andronikos I of Byzantium = Eudokia Palaiologina;
Isaakios Komnenos = NN;
Irene Dukaina = Alexios I of Byzantium;
Andronikos Dukas = Maria of Bulgaria;
Ioannes Dukas (brother of Konstantinos X) = Irene Pegonitissa...
Surely descent from at least 12 Eastern Emperors is not impressive
enough for Mr. Aronax, who will demonstrate much more imposing lines
of descent for a large portion of French aristocracy. AFAIC the
pecularity of Russian lines is that they are usually combined with
either Bagratid or Genghisid descent, which is not such a despicable
bonus after all.
Regards, Igor
George Tsambourakis
> Irene Dukaina. She was born about 1079, married Svyatopolk in 1103 and
> died in 1124.
This could be a misunderstanding.
Barbara was one of the daughters of Isaac Komninos (Sevastocrator) and Irene
Princess of Georgia.
That's what I have in my database.
Isaac was a brother of Alexios mentioned above.
--
George Tsambourakis
> younger brother Andronikos with Irina Volodarevna of Halicz. According
> to Loringhoven's edition of the ES (II: 90) Svyatopolk's children were
> all either by his first wife (unknown) or his third wife (Barbara
> Komnena).
Andronikos (who according to my database) is Barbaras Cousin.
He married in 1122 Irene Aineidasos, daughter of Volodar Rastislasvovitch
Prince of Ruthene.
Pierre Aronax
"Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com...
> "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3e639240$0$23767$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>...
<...>
> > But through an alliance of a Byzantine princess with a Western emperor:
> > difficult to take that as an example of the Byzantine marriages of the
> > Rurikids, or am I wrong somewhere?
>
> Every Byzantine scholar knows of Hugues Capet's letter to
> Constantinople,
What is the link with the fact I pointed? You pretend to prove that Russian
princes married since the most remote antiquity with Byzantine princess, and
you produced as example a connection through a marriage of a Byzantine
princess with a Western emperor. I don't see what Hugh Capet has to do with
that. You seem to always move the discussion to an other point only vaguely
related with the subject every time you are confronted with your
incoherencies or with the lake of base of your examples. I don't see exactly
why I would have to go into an other discussion about the aborted project of
marriage between Robert II and a Byzantine princess: you pretended there
were numerous lines in the Russian aristocracy going back to Byzantine
families through marriage of Byzantine princess with Russian princes, and
namely to the Palaiologoi. You fail to give any concrete proven example.
> where he humbly
Do you imagine he will say something like: "you are a nothing, but I want a
princess of your blood for my son"? The letter is polite, as convenient for
a king writting to emperors.
> asks Emperor's
Rather emperors'
> permission to marry his
> son Robert to Anna Porphyrogeneta.
Here is the text of this letter:
Basilio et Constantino imperatoribus orthodoxis, Hugo, gratia Dei rex
Francorum. Cum nobilitas vestri generis, tum etiam gloria magnorum actuum,
ad amorem vestrum nos hortatur et cogit, hi quippe esse videmini, quorum
amicitia nihil dignius in humania rebus possit existimari. Hanc sanctissimam
amicitiam justissimamque societatem sic expetimus, ut nec regna nec opes
vestras in ea requiramus. Sed haec conditio, quae nostri juris sunt, vestra
efficit, magnoque usui, si placet, haec nostra conjunctio erit, magnosque
fructus efferet; etenim nobis obstantibus nec Gallus, nec Germanus fines
lacesset Romani imperii. Ergo ut haec bona fiant perpetua, quoniam unicus
est nobis filius et ipse rex, nec ei parem in matrimonio aptare possumus,
propter affinitatem vicinorum regum, filiam sancti imperii praecipuo affectu
quaerimus. Quod si haec petita serenissimis auribus vestris placuerint, aut
scriptis imperialibus, aut nunciis fidis nos certos reddite, ut per nostros
legatos vestra majestate dignos, quae sonuerint chartis, compleantur in
rebus.
As you can see, the name of the princess is not given in the document, and
it is almost sure that neither Hugh nor Gerbert, who wrote the later for the
king, had any specific princess in mind. What they wanted was simply a
princess of the imperial family. All we can say is that they expected her to
be a daughter of one of the reigning emperors. This was not an absurd
project: Basil II had no daughter of course, but his brother had: Zoe was
around ten years old at that time, and Eudokia was older, so perfectly
convenient for Robert. So your declaration that Hugh ask for his son
"permission" to marry "Anna Porphyrogeneta" is without any basis. Note also
the reason given for this demand: the king's son can not find a woman of his
rank "in reason of the parentage with the neighbour kings".
> He was refused, Anna married St.
> Vladimir. Is this a reason for your arrogance towards Rurikids?
>
> Learning their lesson well, Capetians found more equal union next time
> and married their next king to Anna of Kiev. You may remember that
> Henri was illiterate and could not even sign the wedding charter
> (unlike his spouse). I can understand Basil II. Who wants to have a
> brother-in-law who cannot write his own name? :)
I don't see what you call the "wedding charter". Anna was indeed probably
rather literate but, if I record correctly, she is never mentionned in the
charters of her husband. Little is know about Henri I and I don't think
there is a way to prove he was or was not illiterate. Of course, there was
no "signatures" in the 11th century, but subscriptions. Illiterate or not,
the kings didn't subscribe himself the charter: their only "signature" was a
monogram, designed by the chancery, and were only a small element was
autograph.
> > >
> > > To say nothing about the wife of Dolgoruky, Barbara Komnene (the
> > > daughter of Alexios I and the wife of Svyatopolk II)
> > <...>
>
> > Alexis I Komnčnos had no daughter named Barbara (and it would be a
rather
> > strange name for a Byzantine princess.
>
> Varvara (that's her Russian name) was the 1st child of Alexios and
> Irene Dukaina.
Could you provide us with a primary source where this supposed daughter is
mentionned?
> She was born about 1079,
Extraordinary since in 1079 Eirčnč Doukaina, the supposed mother of this
supposed daughter, who had married Alexios Komnčnos in 1078, was around 13
years old... The first child of Alexios I was Anna, born only in 1083. The
complete list of the children of the emperor is known, and there was no
Barbara among them: he had four sons and five daughters (Anna, Maria,
Eudokia, Theodôra and Zoč). I quote Nikčtas Choniatčs (who doesn't take into
acount the children died in infancy and so gives to Alexios four and not
five daughters): "The lord Alexios Komnčnos had three sons and four
daughters. The first born son was Iôannčs, but the first child born from
Alexios' loins was his daughter Anna...". So, no Barbara, and certainly not
born before 1083.
> married Svyatopolk in 1103 and
> died in 1124. Varvara was instrumental in securing the alliance of her
> younger brother Andronikos with Irina Volodarevna of Halicz.
Andronikos Komnčnos' wife was an Eirčnč of unknown origine. That is probably
why everybody wants her to sustain his own theory: from time to time, a
message pups up on the forum which makes her a member of an hypothetical
Rodokanakčs family, without any serious source of course. Have you more
source for your own version of her ascendancy?
> According
> to Loringhoven's edition of the ES (II: 90) Svyatopolk's children were
> all either by his first wife (unknown) or his third wife (Barbara
> Komnena).
Except that this Barbara Komnčnč never existed.
> The Byzantine wife of Yury Dolgoruky is no legend too. Everyone knows
> that foreign princesses returned to lands of their forebears in time
> of need: Hungarian princesses - to Hungary (e.g., Anna Lanka of
> Tmutarakan), Polish princesses - to Poland, etc. I can't see any
> reason why Yury's widow should have taken her children with her to
> Byzantium, if she were a Russian or Kipchak princess. But you will
> believe it only if her corpse is exhumed, and some kind of genetical
> expertise is held.
<...>
To say the true, I would be far more happy with a single contemporary
source. All this are hypothesis based on other hypothesis, no more.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
"Renia" <Re...@otenet.gr> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E6413C6...@otenet.gr...
> George Tsambourakis wrote:
> use.
> >
> >
> >>"gunaichomaimos"
> >
> > I have my doubts about the words you use, because the word above does
not
> > exists and never existed.
> >
> > "Gynaiko-" is the first part of the word and not "Gunaicho" which means
> > nothing in Greek (Old and New).
> > The second word "Maimos" is totally unknown to me. Does it exist?????
>
> Does he mean gynaikadelfos (brother-in-law)?
No, I mean what I wrote, "gunaichomainos" ("gynaichomainos" if you prefer).
It seems to be a rather rare word: it is attested only in Choniatčs, at
least for what is of narrative sources.
>
> Gynaika, of course, means woman or wife.
In modern Greek, but in Ancient Greek, wife is "gunč" (or "gynč" if you
prefer to use a "y" for the Greek letter ypsilon), also used in modern
Greek.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
"George Tsambourakis" <eac...@ozemail.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
news: 2Rb9a.95$8I1....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> Gynaikadelfos and Gynaikadelfi are "modern Greek".
> equivalents for Kouniados (Gynaikadelfos=wife's brother) and Kouniada
> (Gynaikadelfi=wife's sitster).
> Both words are not very old and are not commonly used.
"Gunaikadelphos" (or "gunaikoadelphos") and "gunaikadelphč" (or
"gunaikoadelphč") are not so recent: the first is used for example by
Iōannčs Apokaukos (+ 1233/5), the second for example by Michačl Attaliatčs
(11th century). So, this words are far more anciend than Kouniados and
Kouniada, which were not used in Greek in the Byzantine era.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
"Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com...
Here a source perhaps?
> David I of Trapezunt = Helene Kantakuzene;
David's only wife was probably Maria of Gothia and Hčlčnč Kantakouzčnč
probably never existed.
> Alexios IV of Trapezunt = Theodora Kantakuzene;
> Manuel III of Trapezunt = Eudokia Bagrationi;
> Alexios III of Trapezunt = Theodora Kanatakuzene;
> Basil I of Trapezunt = Irene Palaiologina;
Alexios III's mother was not Eirčnč Palaiologina
> Alexios II of Trapezunt = Jijaq of Samatzkhe;
> Ioannes II of Trapezunt = Eudokia Palaiologina (dau of Michael VIII)
> Manuel I of Trapezunt = Rusudani Bagrationi;
> Alexios I of Trapezunt = Theodora Axuchina;
> Manuel Komnenos = Rusudani Bagrationi;
> Andronikos I of Byzantium = Eudokia Palaiologina;
The name of Andronikos' first wife is unknown.
> Isaakios Komnenos = NN;
His wife was Eirčnč
> Irene Dukaina = Alexios I of Byzantium;
> Andronikos Dukas = Maria of Bulgaria;
> Ioannes Dukas (brother of Konstantinos X) = Irene Pegonitissa...
Many wifes' names here are unproven.
> Surely descent from at least 12 Eastern Emperors is not impressive
> enough for Mr. Aronax, who will demonstrate much more imposing lines
> of descent for a large portion of French aristocracy. AFAIC the
> pecularity of Russian lines is that they are usually combined with
> either Bagratid or Genghisid descent, which is not such a despicable
> bonus after all.
For what is of the line itself, Mamia of Gouria was "gambros" of David
Komnčnos (what does it mean exactly...), but the name of Mamia's wife is not
known, neither can it be proven she was the mother of his son. So the line
is broken here, except if you have some evidence of the contrary.
Anyway, this is a line through the Bagrations: if it is exact, it prove
ancient marriages between Byzantine aristocracy and Georgian dynasties, and
not between Byzantine aristocracy and Russian princely families. I was
perfectly aware, as probably everybody on this forum, of the matrimonial
relations of the Bagrations with Byzantium, and it is not a scoop that
Bagrations married in the Russian aristocracy after the annexion of their
country by Russia. This as nothing to do with what was promised! I quote
you: "The majority of Russian aristocrats had the blood of Makedonioi,
Palaiologi, Komnenoi, and what not thanks to Byzantine marriages of their
forefathers and Bagratid marriages of themselves". For the moment, you
didn't provide any line who is not through the Bagrations, so the "Byzantine
marriages of their forefathers" seems to have been only an embroidered way
to speak. What you wanted to say was in fact: "Some Russian aristocrats have
Byzantine ancestors through Bagratid marriages", and no more. With that, I
perfectly agree and I always did.
Pierre
George Tsambourakis
> "gunaikoadelphč")
You miss the point.
Firstly: Gunaika is not Greek, Gynaika is.
Secondly; Greeks irrespective of the century they live(d)
do have the right to speak Greek and both Gynaikadelphos and Gynaikadelphi
are Greek words.
Whether you did see it in 1000 years old documents, or today that
it irrelevant.
The word Gynaikadelphos is rare because Kouniados is a
shorter word.
Don Stone
>> Manuel Komnenos = Rusudani Bagrationi;
>> Andronikos I of Byzantium = Eudokia Palaiologina;
>
> The name of Andronikos' first wife is unknown.
>
>>Isaakios Komnenos = NN;
>
> His wife was Eirčnč
Rafal Prinke has been making the case that his wife was Kata-Irena, daughter
of the Georgian king David the Builder.
-- Don Stone
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3E6393B0...@interfold.com>...
>
>
>>>>...although they had no known children ?
>>>
>>>What about Dobronega?
>>
>>By all accounts, not daughter of Anna.
>
>
> Hmm... I wish I were as certain as you. All Polish sources (as summed
> up by Jan Dlugosz 1455-80) regard Dobronega/Maria as the daughter of
> Anna.
OK, let me rephrase. By all accounts I have seen, not daughter
of Anna.
> I may agree that Gostynska chronicle is too late, but what's
> wrong with Kronika Wielkopolska?
What is the date of this?
> It is stated there that Kasimir
> married Maria (also known as Dobronega), the daughter of Russian
> prince Roman. There was no Russian prince called Roman, but the father
> of Anna was Romanos II. Perhaps Byzantines were called something like
> 'Romans' in Polish?
I am always hesitant to take an obviously erroneous statement and
try to 'fix it' by making it mean what we want it to mean.
taf
Pierre Aronax
> > "Gunaikadelphos" (or "gunaikoadelphos") and "gunaikadelphč" (or
> > "gunaikoadelphč")
>
> You miss the point.
> Firstly: Gunaika is not Greek, Gynaika is.
I simply transliterate "ypsilon" with "u", that's all. That's all.
> Secondly; Greeks irrespective of the century they live(d)
> do have the right to speak Greek and both Gynaikadelphos and Gynaikadelphi
> are Greek words.
And so?
> Whether you did see it in 1000 years old documents, or today that
> it irrelevant.
> The word Gynaikadelphos is rare because Kouniados is a
> shorter word.
I don't discuss of today Greek, but of Byzantine Greek. You said "kouniados"
was more ancient than "gynaikadelphos": it is simply wrong. You said
"gambros" was never used for husband of more distant relatives than
daughters and sisters: that's wrong again.
Pierre
George Tsambourakis
And WHO ARE YOU to do that?????????
Wouldn't be wise to stick to your French????
Pierre Aronax
> > I simply transliterate "ypsilon" with "u", that's all. That's all.
And you do that also, since I suppose you don't write "aytokrator" but
"autokrator".
>
> And WHO ARE YOU to do that?????????
I am the owner of a computer which doesn't allow Greek letters for emails,
so I have to transliterate them. For a word really transliterated (I mean by
that, a word I would have written with Latin fonts even if Greek fonts were
used, like "Palaiologos"), I used "y" or "u" for upsilon, depending of the
position of the letter in the word. When I transliterate a quotation of a
Greek writer (so, words I would have written with Greek fonts if Greek fonts
had been usable, like the quotation of Choniatčs), I use "u" for upsilon in
all cases, to avoid using two Latin letters for the same Greek letter. We
already discuss many time of transcription: it is always a convention.
That was not the point anyway. Do you agree now that you were wrong when you
said "kouniados" was more ancient than "gynaikadelphos", and also when you
said "gambros" was never used for husband of more distant relatives than
daughters and sisters?
Pierre
Igor Sklar
> "Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > Prince Andrey Petrovich Gagarin = Tatiana Valentinovna Yakovleva;
> > Pr Pyotr Andreievich Gagarin = Varvara Vasilievna Sheshina;
> > Pss Maria Dmitrievna Obolenskaya = Pr Andrey Grigorievich Gagarin;
> > Pss Daria Petrovna Trubetskaya = Pr Dmitry Petrovich Obolensky;
> > Pr Pyotr Petrovich Trubetskoy = Elisaveta Nikolaievna Bakhmeteva;
> > Pss Daria Alexandrovna Gruzinskaya = Pr Pyotr Sergeievich Trubetskoy;
> > Pr Alexander Bakarovich Gruzinsky = Pss Daria Alexandrovna Menshikova;
> > Pr Bakar Vakhtangovich Bagrationi = Pss Anna Georgievna Eristavi;
> > Vakhtang VI, the last king of Kartli = Pss Rusudani of Circassia;
> > Pss Tuta of Guria =1672 Prince Levan of Kartli (Shah-Kuli-Khan);
> > Kaihosro I of Guria (+1658) = Pss Hvaramze Goshadze;
> > Vakhtang I of Guria (+1587) =1583 Pss Thamar Dadiani;
> > Rostom I of Guria (+1536) = Pss Tinatini of Imeretia;
> > Mamia III of Guria (+1534);
> > Giorgi I of Guria (+1512);
> > Kahabar II of Guria (+1483);
> > Mamia II of Guria = Eudokia Megale Komnene;
>
> Here a source perhaps?
>
An excellent summary of sources may be found here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9jsk2g%24ban%242%40front4.grolier.fr&output=gplain
Pierre Aronax
"Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com...
> "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3e69211b$0$444$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>...
> > "Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com...
<...>
> > > Kahabar II of Guria (+1483);
> > > Mamia II of Guria = Eudokia Megale Komnene;
> >
> > Here a source perhaps?
> >
>
> An excellent summary of sources may be found here:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9jsk2g%24ban%242%40front4.grolier.fr&ou
tput=gplain
If you really read this post, perhaps you noticed this his one of my own
messages? My conclusion was that the source which was supposed to say that
Mamia of Gouria married a daughter of David II (whom I didn't call Eudokia
since her name is unknown of all the sources I quoted) didn't say that at
all, but only that Mamia was David's "gambros" (so son-in-law,
brother-in-law or married with a more distant female relative). Then I point
that we have a 16th century but rather valuable source which says that a
sister of David was married with an "Emperor of Iberia" which I suggested to
tentatively identify with Mamia: so Mamia would be David's brother-in-law
and not son-in-law. So, there is no source who says Mamia was David's
son-in-law rather than brother-in-law, and a source which makes think he was
rather his brother-in-law. I see nothing here which can sustain your clain
that Mamia married David's daughter, less that this daughter was born from
an Helena Kantakouzčnč who probaby never existed.
I produce nothing which can sustain the claim that Mamia's posterity was
born from his Byzantine wife, nor did I pretend to do so. I suspect you have
not done this research yourself since you point only to my message for the
source.
So, for the moment, we know only that Mamia was married with a princess of
Trebizond, not that he had any posterity from her.
Pierre
Igor Sklar
> If you really read this post, perhaps you noticed this his one of my own
> messages? My conclusion was that the source which was supposed to say that
> Mamia of Gouria married a daughter of David II (whom I didn't call Eudokia
> since her name is unknown of all the sources I quoted) didn't say that at
> all, but only that Mamia was David's "gambros" (so son-in-law,
> brother-in-law or married with a more distant female relative). Then I point
> that we have a 16th century but rather valuable source which says that a
> sister of David was married with an "Emperor of Iberia" which I suggested to
> tentatively identify with Mamia: so Mamia would be David's brother-in-law
> and not son-in-law. So, there is no source who says Mamia was David's
> son-in-law rather than brother-in-law, and a source which makes think he was
> rather his brother-in-law. I see nothing here which can sustain your clain
> that Mamia married David's daughter, less that this daughter was born from
> an Helena Kantakouzčnč who probaby never existed.
>
> I produce nothing which can sustain the claim that Mamia's posterity was
> born from his Byzantine wife, nor did I pretend to do so. I suspect you have
> not done this research yourself since you point only to my message for the
> source.
>
> So, for the moment, we know only that Mamia was married with a princess of
> Trebizond, not that he had any posterity from her.
>
> Pierre
Like you, I haven't studied any Georgian sources on the subject, and
yet I think there is enough room for discussion.
Firstly, we do not know any other wife of Mamia. I assume that if a
man has only one wife and produces legitimate posterity, this
posterity must issue from this marriage. It could be otherwise in
fact, but until nothing to the contrary is known, we should uphold
this position. Otherwise it would be impossible to establish any
descent from Komnenoi of Trapezunt (or any other ancient Eastern
dynasty) at all.
Secondly, there is chronology. If the wife of Mamia was David's
sister, there's all the more reason to believe she was the mother of
Kahabar. She was born before 1420 (when Theodora Kantakuzene was not
yet too old to bear children), married Mamia before 1440... and yet
she was still alive in 1460s. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge
of Georgian history and traditions will agree that a new marriage
severs all ties with a former wife's family. I don't think it likely
that Mamia would help relatives of his 1st wife in case he was married
for the 2nd time (or had not adult posterity by his 1st wife).
Considering the chronology of previous Gurieli rulers, it's highly
unlikely that Mamia had enough time to produce heir either before the
marriage with Komnene (he should have been born about 1415) or after
it (he died in 1469). From what we know the most plausible scenario
(by far) is that Kahabar was born soon after the marriage (say before
1445), suceeded his father in 1469, and died in 1483.
Thirdly, there is such a thing as family tradition. The Guriely family
has maintained for a long time that they descend from the Komennoi of
Trapezunt. The Andronikashvili family also for centuries has claimed
descent from the lateral branch of the imperial Komnenoi, and now we
do have sources corroborating that some children of Andronikos I (the
Duplo-Komnenoi, so to speak :) spent most of their life in Georgia and
had posterity there.
Fourthly, you admitted today that later kings of Georgia descend from
Mega Komnenoi in a female line. Even if Gurian link is insecure, there
are other links that sustain overall validity of this route.
BTW, I'd like to know your opinion concerning the marriage of Emperor
Louis III and Anna of Byzantium. It is said by some to have taken
place in 905, when Anna was only 7, and yet we know they had a child
soon after the marriage (Anna died in 16). What is more interesting,
purported granddaughter of Anna (Constance, wife of Boso II) was born
in 920, i.e. when her father (Charles de Vienne) was no more than 15.
You told me recently that having children at the age of 13 is
something extraordinary. It seems like we have several extraordinary
events piled on top of each other here.
Is a descent from this marriage is more plausible than that from the
Gurian one? Are there any proven lines from Makedonioi to modern
Europe at all?
Regards, Igor
Suzanne
> BTW, I'd like to know your opinion concerning the marriage of Emperor
> Louis III and Anna of Byzantium. It is said by some to have taken
> place in 905, when Anna was only 7, and yet we know they had a child
> soon after the marriage (Anna died in 16). What is more interesting,
> purported granddaughter of Anna (Constance, wife of Boso II) was born
> in 920, i.e. when her father (Charles de Vienne) was no more than 15.
> You told me recently that having children at the age of 13 is
> something extraordinary. It seems like we have several extraordinary
> events piled on top of each other here.
Where have you got all these dates?
Christian Settipani wrote in this newsgroup several years ago:
"The only daughter available to Leon in 900 is Anna, whose birth is
not exactly fixed. Some put it ca 890, but 888 is a good possibility
for other reasons, and some time before is not excluded (Donald
Jackman has misunderstood my argument for this point in his last
book). She was dead before 903. For Charles Constantine, son of Louis
III, we can put his birth ca 900 or a little after."
Where has he got all these dates?
I understand that Theofano (the first wife of Leo) died in November
897. Leo married his mistress Zoe, and she gave birth to Anna a year
before her death. Zoe died in 899, therefore Anna was born in 898.
Why Anna could not be living in 903? Louis III married Adelaide of
Bourgogne in 914, this seems to put the death of his previous wife at
about 912.
Can anybody help to establish the right chronology?
Thanks, Suzanne
Andrew S. Kalinkin
>
> >
> > >>...although they had no known children ?
> > >
> > > What about Dobronega?
> >
> > By all accounts, not daughter of Anna.
>
> Hmm... I wish I were as certain as you. All Polish sources (as summed
> up by Jan Dlugosz 1455-80)
Dlugosz is not "All Polish sources". He is the first to call Dobronega
Anna's daughter, and this is 400+ years after the fact. Surprisingly all
contemporary and near contemporary sources are completely silent about so
illustrious connection.
> regard Dobronega/Maria as the daughter of
> Anna. I may agree that Gostynska chronicle is too late,
Totally useless. It was havily influenced by Polish histories, so
this info came ultimately from Dlugosz (through later historians).
No independent confirmation.
> but what's
> wrong with Kronika Wielkopolska?
Nothing, except that it doesn't say at all what you try to read in it.
> It is stated there that Kasimir
> married Maria (also known as Dobronega), the daughter of Russian
> prince Roman. There was no Russian prince called Roman
Actually there was.
> No other mother for Dobronega was suggested by medieval authors.
The vast majority of medieval authors don't give any mother for
Dobronega at all. Or father, for that matter.
> But
> then there appear modern historians burning with ambitions to make
> reputation by rewriting history.
By any chance, are you follower of Fomenko ?
> They declare that chronology is
> impossible. Why? Isn't it probable that the Polish marriage was the
> 2nd for Dobronega, and she was already a widow of some other prince?
Sure. Casimir was the last member of his dynasty. He urgently needed a
heir. So he got a special permission from pope to marry and then choose
a woman 15-20 years his senior.
> BTW Boris and Gleb were mentioned by near-contemporary sources as
> children of Anna (though it is somewhat dubious, I agree),
According to all near contemporary sources their mother was a Bulgarian.
Only some extremely late sources make them children of Anna (a clear and
obvious fiction).
> and
> Predslava chronologically should have been born from this marriage
> too.
The common consensus about Predslava that she was Rogneda's daughter.
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> "Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > died in 1124. Varvara was instrumental in securing the alliance of her
> > younger brother Andronikos with Irina Volodarevna of Halicz.
>
> why everybody wants her to sustain his own theory: from time to time, a
> message pups up on the forum which makes her a member of an hypothetical
> source for your own version of her ascendancy?
Actually this one is based on source. Nestor states that in 1104 a daughter
of Volodar married emperor Alexios' son (it is not specified which one).
Of course any role of nonexistent Barbara Komnene in this alliance is pure
fantasy.
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> Igor Sklar wrote:
> > I may agree that Gostynska chronicle is too late, but what's
> > wrong with Kronika Wielkopolska?
>
> What is the date of this?
Variously dated between late 13th and mid-14th century. The last entry
in the chronicle is for the year 1273. AFAIK it is the second oldest
source that gives any specific parentage for Dobronega (next after
Nestor).
> > It is stated there that Kasimir
> > married Maria (also known as Dobronega), the daughter of Russian
> > prince Roman. There was no Russian prince called Roman, but the father
> > of Anna was Romanos II. Perhaps Byzantines were called something like
> > 'Romans' in Polish?
>
> I am always hesitant to take an obviously erroneous statement and
> try to 'fix it' by making it mean what we want it to mean.
I am not sure that this statement is "obviously erroneous". There was a
Roman in Rurikid family, and he is chronologically possible father for
Dobronega. It is "filiam Odone" bit that is hard to explain.
Andrew
Pierre Aronax
"Andrew S. Kalinkin" <kalinki...@mail.ru> a écrit dans le message de
news: ebb42403.0303...@posting.google.com...
Excuse me: it seems I spoke too fast on this one. In 1104, Andronikos, born
in 1091, had exactly the minimum age to be married.
Pierre
Igor Sklar
> skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3E6393B0...@interfold.com>...
> >
> > >
> > > >>...although they had no known children ?
> > > >
> > > > What about Dobronega?
> > >
> > > By all accounts, not daughter of Anna.
> >
> > Hmm... I wish I were as certain as you. All Polish sources (as summed
> > up by Jan Dlugosz 1455-80)
>
> Dlugosz is not "All Polish sources". He is the first to call Dobronega
> Anna's daughter, and this is 400+ years after the fact.
But he used a vast number of chronicles and other documents not
accessible to later generations!
> Surprisingly all
> contemporary and near contemporary sources are completely silent about so
> illustrious connection.
There are also surprisingly silent about another illustrious
connection, that of Leo VI with Louis III, and this connection is
generally accepted today as genuine!
> > It is stated there that Kasimir
> > married Maria (also known as Dobronega), the daughter of Russian
> > prince Roman. There was no Russian prince called Roman
>
> Actually there was.
Don't tell me that it was Boris/Roman who married the notorious
daughter of Kuno! :) The most plausible explanation is that Greeks
were sometimes called Romans by Poles (like they were by all other
peoples), and the chronicler simply confused 'Romans' with 'Roman'.
> > No other mother for Dobronega was suggested by medieval authors.
>
> The vast majority of medieval authors don't give any mother for
> Dobronega at all. Or father, for that matter.
If Dobronega was a granddaughter of Vladimir, it's much more likely
chronologically that her father was Yaroslav (or Mstislav). I don't
know why these possibilities are so readily rejected.
> > They declare that chronology is
> > impossible. Why? Isn't it probable that the Polish marriage was the
> > 2nd for Dobronega, and she was already a widow of some other prince?
>
> Sure. Casimir was the last member of his dynasty. He urgently needed a
> heir. So he got a special permission from pope to marry and then choose
> a woman 15-20 years his senior.
"15-20 years" is nothing but your fantasy. Whatever her parentage,
Dobronega was older than Casimir, and that's a fact: her father died
15-Jun-1015, and her husband was born 25-Jun-1016. Why she was
unmarried being *at least* 25 years old (an advanced age for an 11th
cent. bride!) remains a mystery. I can't see any reason why she could
be, say, 2 years older than her husband and couldn't be 4 years
older...
> > BTW Boris and Gleb were mentioned by near-contemporary sources as
> > children of Anna (though it is somewhat dubious, I agree),
>
> According to all near contemporary sources their mother was a Bulgarian.
> Only some extremely late sources make them children of Anna (a clear and
> obvious fiction).
>
> > and
> > Predslava chronologically should have been born from this marriage
> > too.
>
> The common consensus about Predslava that she was Rogneda's daughter.
So you suppose that Vladimir lived with Anna for 23 years, and had no
children by her? Very good for you. But haven't your heard that 'the
common consensus' among scholars is that Yaroslav was born at least 10
years later the date assigned to him by Nestor? In this case he could
be the 1st child of Vladimir and Anna. This shift of chronology
explains Greek names (among them Anna!) of his daughters not sons.
Some authorities (Mr. Settipani, for example) deem it sufficient
evidence of a Byzantine parentage when a child is named, say, Charles
Constantine.
Regards, Igor
Pierre Aronax
<...>
> So you suppose that Vladimir lived with Anna for 23 years, and had no
> children by her? Very good for you. But haven't your heard that 'the
> common consensus' among scholars is that Yaroslav was born at least 10
> years later the date assigned to him by Nestor? In this case he could
> be the 1st child of Vladimir and Anna. This shift of chronology
> explains Greek names (among them Anna!) of his daughters not sons.
> Some authorities (Mr. Settipani, for example) deem it sufficient
> evidence of a Byzantine parentage when a child is named, say, Charles
> Constantine.
Choice of a Greek name for a Russian prince can reasonably be explained by
the Byzantine cultural influence on Russia at that time. But a double name
like Charles Constantine is an oddity in Frankish anthroponomy which needs
an explanation.
Pierre
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> kalinki...@mail.ru (Andrew S. Kalinkin) wrote in message news:<ebb42403.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > Anna's daughter, and this is 400+ years after the fact.
>
> But he used a vast number of chronicles and other documents not
> accessible to later generations!
And also a very liberal amount of his own fantasy and guesswork.
> > Surprisingly all
> > contemporary and near contemporary sources are completely silent about so
> > illustrious connection.
>
> There are also surprisingly silent about another illustrious
> connection, that of Leo VI with Louis III, and this connection is
> generally accepted today as genuine!
Charles Constantine was a very obscure figure and not much is known about
him at all. This can't be said about rulers of Poland. For example, Gallus
wrote his history at the court of Dobronega's grandson and used every
opportunity to glorify his hero and his noble ancestors. But writing about
marriage of Kazimir and Dobronega, he very ambiguously describes her only
as "a noble lady from Russia".
> > > It is stated there that Kasimir
> > > married Maria (also known as Dobronega), the daughter of Russian
> > > prince Roman. There was no Russian prince called Roman
> >
> > Actually there was.
>
> Don't tell me that it was Boris/Roman who married the notorious
> daughter of Kuno! :)
There is no need to bring daughter of Kuno in the picture at all. No
evidence about any connection between her and Dobronega exists. Only
if 1) Dobronega was daughter of Vladimir and 2) Vladimir's last wife
was daughter of Kuno, then we can reasonably suggest that Dobronega
was Kuno's granddaughter. If any of the above fails, forget about it.
BTW we know (from Nestor's "Chtenie") that Boris/Roman WAS married. So
there is nothing impossible in this idea.
> The most plausible explanation is that Greeks
> were sometimes called Romans by Poles (like they were by all other
> peoples), and the chronicler simply confused 'Romans' with 'Roman'.
The chronicle clearly states that Dobronega's father was a certain person
named Roman, son of Otto, and the most plausible explanation that this is
exactly what the author meant. Was he right or not - it is another question
entirely.
> If Dobronega was a granddaughter of Vladimir, it's much more likely
> chronologically that her father was Yaroslav (or Mstislav). I don't
> know why these possibilities are so readily rejected.
They are not rejected. Such suggestion were made (for Yaroslav).
> > > They declare that chronology is
> > > impossible. Why? Isn't it probable that the Polish marriage was the
> > > 2nd for Dobronega, and she was already a widow of some other prince?
> >
> > Sure. Casimir was the last member of his dynasty. He urgently needed a
> > heir. So he got a special permission from pope to marry and then choose
> > a woman 15-20 years his senior.
>
> "15-20 years" is nothing but your fantasy.
No, it is not just fantasy. Anna was born in 963. So we can reasonably
expect that her children, if any, would be born sometimes in 990s. Of
course you may say the it isn't biologically impossible for a woman,
even in 11th century, to have a child at 48, but this certainly isn't
the most plausible scenario.
> > The common consensus about Predslava that she was Rogneda's daughter.
>
> So you suppose that Vladimir lived with Anna for 23 years, and had no
> children by her? Very good for you.
Why not ? Is there anything impossible (or even unusual) about it ?
> But haven't your heard that 'the
> common consensus' among scholars is that Yaroslav was born at least 10
> years later the date assigned to him by Nestor?
No, I haven't heard about such thing. Sure, I heard about *suggestions*,
made by some historians, that Yaroslav was younger than claimed by Nestor,
but this is not the same thing.
> In this case he could
> be the 1st child of Vladimir and Anna.
As all existing sources explicitely call him a son by Rogneda, this
remains a pure demagogy.
> This shift of chronology
> explains Greek names (among them Anna!) of his daughters not sons.
Why "not sons" ? Are Dimitry, Nikolay or Andrey less greek names than
Anna or Anastasia ?
> Some authorities (Mr. Settipani, for example) deem it sufficient
> evidence of a Byzantine parentage when a child is named, say, Charles
> Constantine.
Greek names of Yaroslav's children are easily explaned by a certain event
that happened in Rus in 988. Nothing similar happened in 10th century
Provance, so in case of Charles Constantine another explanation is needed.
Regards,
Andrew
Igor Sklar
> "Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com...
>
> the Byzantine cultural influence on Russia at that time. But a double name
> like Charles Constantine is an oddity in Frankish anthroponomy which needs
> an explanation.
IMHO a double name is an oddity for Russian onomastics but is a norm
for Western Europe. The real oddity is Yaroslav's choice of names for
his children: only Greek names for his daughters and only Slavic names
for his sons. Doesn't it imply that Yaroslav's mother was a Greek and
his father was a Slav?
The principal point of this message is to expose double standarts of
some scholars.
They tell us with a triumphant look that Anna of Byzantium was married
(or just engaged?) to a Frankish prince, a cousin of Berthe of
Tuscany, and this prince must have been (for some obscure reason) her
2nd (!) cousin Louis III. Very well, we also know FOR SURE that
another Anna of Byzantium was married to Vladimir I.
They tell us then that Louis III lived with Anna for a year or two
(while we have no record that she ever left Constantinople). Very
well, we know FOR SURE that Anna Porphyrogeneta lived with Vladimir in
Kiev for 23 years.
As if there was not enough guesswork already, they tell us that Anna
(aged 12 or so) and Louis III had a son, called Charles Constantine,
and his name somehow proves his Byzantine imperial descent. OK, but we
know FOR SURE that Vladimir's granddaughter was called Anna, obviously
just like her grandmother.
Comparing these facts, any sane person would conclude that Yaroslav's
descent from Anna Porphyrogeneta is more plausible than Charles'
descent from Anna of Byzantium. And yet every reference accepts
Charles' descent from Leo VI as genuine, and not a single reference
admits that Yaroslav could be a grandson of Romanos II.
But we have some other facts. We know FOR SURE that Nestor's
chronology of Yaroslav's life is wrong, because he places Yaroslav's
birth at 978, and Vladimir's marriage with his mother at 980. We also
know that Yaroslav gave to his eldest son the Slavic name of Vladimir
(to honour his father), and he gave the Greek name of Anna to his
eldest daughter (to honour his mother). Olegs, Igors, Svyatoslavs,
Yaroslavs, Igors, Annas are common name for Rurikid princes of
subsequent generations, but do you know any Rogneda?
There are several other questions: why Nestor made Yaroslav 10 years
older than he actually was (this is proven by modern research)? and
why he made Rogneda his mother? Answer: because he wrote his work in
1113 for Svyatopolk II and his pro-Scandinavian party as opposed to
the pro-Byzantine party of Vladimir Monomachos. He knew that Rogneda
was a Scandinavian, possibly of Yngling descent, so he decided that
Yaroslav should be regarded as her son, half-Scandinavian himself. He
did not mention a Byzantine marriage of Vsevolod I, because this
connection did not seem illustrious for him; he told us so much about
Rogneda's marriage to Vladimir and made her a mother of Yaroslav,
because he regarded an Yngling descent of his patron prince as a
pinnacle of prestige.
In other words, Nestor ignored the existence of Anna for the same
reason why he ignored Russian defeats at Constantinople, why he
manipulated dates of military campaigns, why he tried to represent
Russians as vanquishers of Greeks, etc. Perhaps nobody would deny that
Nestor was severely biased: he tried to augment Russian connections
with Scandinavia and to diminish/conceal all facts of cooperation with
Byzantium. Noone believes Nestor's account of Russian campaign of 1043
anymore, and yet everyone thinks his account of Yaroslav's origin is
right. We have a remarkable lack of logic here.
Regards, Igor
Igor Sklar
> skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > kalinki...@mail.ru (Andrew S. Kalinkin) wrote in message news:<ebb42403.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > contemporary and near contemporary sources are completely silent about so
> > > illustrious connection.
> >
> > There are also surprisingly silent about another illustrious
> > connection, that of Leo VI with Louis III, and this connection is
> > generally accepted today as genuine!
>
> Charles Constantine was a very obscure figure and not much is known about
> him at all. This can't be said about rulers of Poland.
The only son of Western Emperor an obscure figure?!
> For example, Gallus
> wrote his history at the court of Dobronega's grandson and used every
> opportunity to glorify his hero and his noble ancestors. But writing about
> marriage of Kazimir and Dobronega, he very ambiguously describes her only
> as "a noble lady from Russia".
As you may judge by his Latin name and works, Gallus had little
knowledge (and much less respect) of Greek Orthodox countries,
including Byzantium.
> > > > It is stated there that Kasimir
> > > > married Maria (also known as Dobronega), the daughter of Russian
> > > > prince Roman. There was no Russian prince called Roman
> > >
> > > Actually there was.
> >
> > Don't tell me that it was Boris/Roman who married the notorious
> > daughter of Kuno! :)
>
> There is no need to bring daughter of Kuno in the picture at all. No
> evidence about any connection between her and Dobronega exists.
What about 'filiam Odone'?
> > > > They declare that chronology is
> > > > impossible. Why? Isn't it probable that the Polish marriage was the
> > > > 2nd for Dobronega, and she was already a widow of some other prince?
> > >
> > > Sure. Casimir was the last member of his dynasty. He urgently needed a
> > > heir. So he got a special permission from pope to marry and then choose
> > > a woman 15-20 years his senior.
> >
> > "15-20 years" is nothing but your fantasy.
>
> No, it is not just fantasy. Anna was born in 963. So we can reasonably
> expect that her children, if any, would be born sometimes in 990s. Of
> course you may say the it isn't biologically impossible for a woman,
> even in 11th century, to have a child at 48, but this certainly isn't
> the most plausible scenario.
A millenium ago women were much healthier than now, childbirth at the
age of 40 was a norm. What was the age of Olga when Svyatoslav I was
born?
> > > The common consensus about Predslava that she was Rogneda's daughter.
> >
> > So you suppose that Vladimir lived with Anna for 23 years, and had no
> > children by her? Very good for you.
>
> Why not ? Is there anything impossible (or even unusual) about it ?
>
> > But haven't your heard that 'the
> > common consensus' among scholars is that Yaroslav was born at least 10
> > years later the date assigned to him by Nestor?
>
> No, I haven't heard about such thing. Sure, I heard about *suggestions*,
> made by some historians, that Yaroslav was younger than claimed by Nestor,
> but this is not the same thing.
Nestor says Vladimir encountered Rogneda in 980, doesn't he? Nestor
says Yaroslav's parents were Vladimir and Rogneda, doesn't he? Nestor
says Yaroslav died in 1054, doesn't he? Nestor says that Yaroslav was
aged 76, doesn't he? If you think all of the above statements are
true, you have serious problems with arithmetics.
> > In this case he could
> > be the 1st child of Vladimir and Anna.
>
> As all existing sources explicitely call him a son by Rogneda, this
> remains a pure demagogy.
I don't know what you call 'all sources', but it seems like these
sources were heavily dependant from Nestor.
> > This shift of chronology
> > explains Greek names (among them Anna!) of his daughters not sons.
>
> Why "not sons" ? Are Dimitry, Nikolay or Andrey less greek names than
> Anna or Anastasia ?
You shouldn't make fools of us. I think you're perfectly aware that
every Russian in the 11th cent. received a Christian name at baptism,
which was a pure formality, important only for ecclesiastic purposes.
Neither Vladimir nor Izyaslav nor Svyatoslav nor Vsevolod nor
Vyacheslav nor Igor used their Christian names in everyday life. On
the other hand, children of Yaroslav's brothers are known by their
Christian names only: Mstislav had a son Eustaphy, and Svyatoslav had
a son Ioann. Grandsons of Yaroslav also had merely Christian names,
with no Slavic equivalent: Roman Svyatoslavich, Davyd Svyatoslavich,
Davyd Igorevich, etc.
As for Yaroslav's daughters, only Greek names (Anastasia, Anna,
Elisaveta) are recorded for them. It suggests that they had no
original Slavic names at all. We know much less about daughters of
Vladimir, but nevertheless Slavic names were recorded for all of them:
Predslava, Premyslava, Dobronega... We may analize names of Yaroslav's
granddaughters and great granddaughers too. In the family of Izyaslav,
with its Polish connections, they were called Slavic names:
Vysheslava, Predslava, Sbyslava. In the family of Vsevolod (whose wife
was Anastasia Monomachina) they were called Greek names: Eupraxia,
Ekaterina, Maria, Anna. I hope your problems with logic are not so
serious as to prevent you from making the only possible conclusion.
> > Some authorities (Mr. Settipani, for example) deem it sufficient
> > evidence of a Byzantine parentage when a child is named, say, Charles
> > Constantine.
>
> Greek names of Yaroslav's children are easily explaned by a certain event
> that happened in Rus in 988. Nothing similar happened in 10th century
> Provance, so in case of Charles Constantine another explanation is needed.
The name is no more Greek than Roman and by no means as rare as you
think. A feminine form (Constance) was one of the most common names in
Western Europe. Though I haven't made a systematic study, I recall
Constantine king of Scotland as early as 862. Was he also a son of
Byzantine princess?
regards
Pierre Aronax
"Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com...
news:<ebb42403.03031...@posting.google.com>...
<...>
> A millenium ago women were much healthier than now, childbirth at the
> age of 40 was a norm. What was the age of Olga when Svyatoslav I was
> born?
<...>
That is certainly the most extraordinary argument produced until now. Birth
of child from women aged of 40 or more were seen as extraordinary events,
worthy to be remembered, if not suspected of magical practice and/or of
fraud: Constance, mother of emperor Frederic II took all the precaution for
his child's birth to be public, to avoid all suspicion, and she was around
40, no more. This latte birth was regard as some kind of miracle.
<...>
> Nestor says Vladimir encountered Rogneda in 980, doesn't he? Nestor
> says Yaroslav's parents were Vladimir and Rogneda, doesn't he? Nestor
> says Yaroslav died in 1054, doesn't he? Nestor says that Yaroslav was
> aged 76, doesn't he? If you think all of the above statements are
> true, you have serious problems with arithmetics.
Where is here the proof that Yaroslav was born "at least ten years later"?
If he had 76 at his death, he is born in 978, so earlier and not later, and
if he was born in 980, he died at 74 and not 76. Or are you saying that,
since Nestor's chronology is slightly incoherent, we can imagine what we
want?
<...>
> > Greek names of Yaroslav's children are easily explaned by a certain
event
> > that happened in Rus in 988. Nothing similar happened in 10th century
> > Provance, so in case of Charles Constantine another explanation is
needed.
>
> The name is no more Greek than Roman and by no means as rare as you
> think. A feminine form (Constance) was one of the most common names in
> Western Europe. Though I haven't made a systematic study, I recall
> Constantine king of Scotland as early as 862. Was he also a son of
> Byzantine princess?
No, Constantine was definitely not a current name in Carolingian time, and
double names like "Charles Constantine" were no more current: it needs some
peculiar explanation. Of course, this explanation can be other than CC
having a Byzantine mother, but since we know his father married a Byzantine
princess (which is not the case for the Scottish kings named case of Charles
Constantine's maternal ascendancy, I have no religion on that and am
Constantine), this is a reasonable explanation. That being said, I never
examined myself the perfectly ready to consider it as unproven. But there is
at least some anthroponomical oddities which invite to consider this
possibility (even if, after consideration, it happens to be impossible). For
what I have understand (since I don't have any knowledge on the subject),
for Yaroslav's maternal ascendancy, , we have a mother given to him by an
authorized source (since, even if Nestor made an error, he is more likely to
have made it on Yaroslav's age than on his mother's identity), and we have
no particularly disturbing anthroponomical elements to make it suspect
(since the Greek names of his daughters seems perfectly explicable for
religious motives).
Pierre
Renia
>
> A millenium ago women were much healthier than now, childbirth at the
> age of 40 was a norm. What was the age of Olga when Svyatoslav I was
> born?
What is your basis for this statement which runs counter to traditional
understanding?
Women are healthier today and their periods start much earlier and
finish later than they did in medieval times because of the increased
variety of proteins and minerals available in modern food. (That is not
to make any comment at all on the modern junk food phenomena.)
Statistically, people live much longer today, but that is skewed by
including stillbirths and child deaths in the statistics which are
further skewed by men killed in battle before reaching old age. (Today's
statistics are skewed by increasing levels of cancer and heart disease
mostly as a result of modern living.) While poeple could live to great
ages of 80 and 90, people aged more quickly then than they do now and I
feel that while some women could conceive at 40, it could not be
considered "a norm".
Renia
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> kalinki...@mail.ru (Andrew S. Kalinkin) wrote in message news:<ebb42403.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > him at all. This can't be said about rulers of Poland.
>
> The only son of Western Emperor an obscure figure?!
Yes. Strange things sometimes happen.
> > No, I haven't heard about such thing. Sure, I heard about *suggestions*,
> > made by some historians, that Yaroslav was younger than claimed by Nestor,
> > but this is not the same thing.
>
> Nestor says Vladimir encountered Rogneda in 980, doesn't he? Nestor
> says Yaroslav's parents were Vladimir and Rogneda, doesn't he? Nestor
> says Yaroslav died in 1054, doesn't he? Nestor says that Yaroslav was
> aged 76, doesn't he? If you think all of the above statements are
> true, you have serious problems with arithmetics.
It is hardly a great discovery that chronology isn't Nestor's strong point.
However Iakov the Monk states that Vladimir acceeded the Kiev throne in 978,
so the chronology can be fixed another way. But even if Nestor's evaluation
of Yaroslav's age is wrong (I have no problem with it), it is a huge and
completely unsupported leap to jump from "somewhat younger" to "at least 10
years or more younger".
> > > In this case he could
> > > be the 1st child of Vladimir and Anna.
> >
> > As all existing sources explicitely call him a son by Rogneda, this
> > remains a pure demagogy.
>
> I don't know what you call 'all sources', but it seems like these
> sources were heavily dependant from Nestor.
Simple. All sources that are available to us. They may be not independent,
but not a single source states otherwise.
> > > This shift of chronology
> > > explains Greek names (among them Anna!) of his daughters not sons.
> >
> > Why "not sons" ? Are Dimitry, Nikolay or Andrey less greek names than
> > Anna or Anastasia ?
>
> You shouldn't make fools of us. I think you're perfectly aware that
> every Russian in the 11th cent. received a Christian name at baptism,
Yes. Every Russian who lived after conversion received a christian name,
males and females alike.
> which was a pure formality, important only for ecclesiastic purposes.
> Neither Vladimir nor Izyaslav nor Svyatoslav nor Vsevolod nor
> Vyacheslav nor Igor used their Christian names in everyday life.
This is a great oversimplification. You recommended me a book of
Nazarenko, remember? Read it. You will find there some examples
when christian names were used in "everyday life" (Dimitry for
Izyaslav, in particular).
> On the other hand, children of Yaroslav's brothers are known by their
> Christian names only: Mstislav had a son Eustaphy, and Svyatoslav had
> a son Ioann.
According to your logic, they must have Greek fathers <g>
More seriously, no conclusion can be made from these examples. In both
cases we have only one occasional mention, and the most likely source
for it is church commemoration records, where only christian names were
used for obvious reason.
> Grandsons of Yaroslav also had merely Christian names,
> with no Slavic equivalent: Roman Svyatoslavich, Davyd Svyatoslavich,
> Davyd Igorevich, etc.
Rostislav Vsevolodich, Gleb Svyatoslavich, Boris Vyacheslavich, etc.
> As for Yaroslav's daughters, only Greek names (Anastasia, Anna,
> Elisaveta) are recorded for them. It suggests that they had no
> original Slavic names at all.
Hmm... do you have any idea WHERE the names of Yaroslav's daughters were
recorded? It seems not.
> We know much less about daughters of
> Vladimir, but nevertheless Slavic names were recorded for all of them:
> Predslava, Premyslava, Dobronega...
Again, WHERE these name were recorded ?
> We may analize names of Yaroslav's
> granddaughters and great granddaughers too. In the family of Izyaslav,
> with its Polish connections, they were called Slavic names:
> Vysheslava, Predslava, Sbyslava.
Anastasia, Maria.
BTW, who is Vysheslava from the family of Izyaslav?
> In the family of Vsevolod (whose wife
> was Anastasia Monomachina) they were called Greek names: Eupraxia,
> Ekaterina, Maria, Anna.
Yanka (aparently derived from Greek Ioanna, but in heavily slavianized form)
> I hope your problems with logic are not so
> serious as to prevent you from making the only possible conclusion.
Your "logic" is so special that it is difficult to understand what point
you are trying to make. Except of course the natural and obvious fact that
Byzantine influence was somewhat stronger among descendants of Vsevolod's
Byzantine wife than in other branches of Rurikids ?
Regards,
Andrew
Igor Sklar
> Igor Sklar wrote:
>
> >
> > A millenium ago women were much healthier than now, childbirth at the
> > age of 40 was a norm. What was the age of Olga when Svyatoslav I was
> > born?
>
> What is your basis for this statement which runs counter to traditional
> understanding?
>
Nevertheless some scholars (who twist evidence to fit their ends)
claim that Leo VI's daughter gave birth to Charles Constantine when
she was 12 or so.
> and
> finish later than they did in medieval times because of the increased
> variety of proteins and minerals available in modern food.
I don't pretend to know when periods started/finished in medieval
times, but I know that having 12 adult children was pretty usual for a
woman. Considering high rates of infant deaths, we may safely conclude
that for 12 children to reach maturity, about the same number should
have died in infancy.
Now, I think the idea of bearing as much as 10-12 (let alone 20-24)
children is a nightmare for an average modern woman. Hence increasing
levels of breast cancer, &c, &c.
regards
Igor Sklar
> "Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > The name is no more Greek than Roman and by no means as rare as you
> > think. A feminine form (Constance) was one of the most common names in
> > Western Europe. Though I haven't made a systematic study, I recall
> > Constantine king of Scotland as early as 862. Was he also a son of
> > Byzantine princess?
> No, Constantine was definitely not a current name in Carolingian time...
Not a current name, but not a unique name too.
> and
> double names like "Charles Constantine" were no more current: it needs some
> peculiar explanation. Of course, this explanation can be other than CC
> having a Byzantine mother, but since we know his father married a Byzantine
> princess....
We know nothing of the kind. It's known that a Frankish prince, cousin
of Bertha of Tuscany, married a Byzantine princess. Louis III was
already an Emperor at that time, and you'll agree perhaps that
'Emperor' is not quite the same as 'prince'.
BTW, I have Bertha of Tuscany (born 930) as a great niece of Louis III
(born ca 880), which is not exactly a cousinage if you know what I
mean.
(which is not the case for the Scottish kings named case of Charles
> Constantine's maternal ascendancy, I have no religion on that and am
> Constantine), this is a reasonable explanation. That being said, I never
> examined myself the perfectly ready to consider it as unproven. But there is
> at least some anthroponomical oddities which invite to consider this
> possibility (even if, after consideration, it happens to be impossible). For
> what I have understand (since I don't have any knowledge on the subject),
> for Yaroslav's maternal ascendancy, , we have a mother given to him by an
> authorized source (since, even if Nestor made an error, he is more likely to
> have made it on Yaroslav's age than on his mother's identity)...
I suggested in my previous post that Nestor did not make an innocent
blunder but deliberately falsified history. You may read his account
of Byzantine campaign of 1043 and compare it with Byzantine sources,
if you think he was a victim of errors. We know that Nestor used
numerous Scandinavian sources (remember Sineus-Truvor?) but his
account of Russo-Byzantine relations is not very impartial to say the
least.
Regards, Igor
Renia
Apparently, childbirth is a preventitive for mothers to get breast
cancer. (A preventetive, not a "cure".)
My great-grandmother had 11 children, none of them twins, the first when
she was aged 16, and the last when she was 39. The last died at school
age 16 of nephritis and the 9th died age 7 of a brain haemorrage,
otherwise they all grew to adulthood. However, the family was extremely
wealthy and could afford the best food and conditions. And I rather
suspect that any families in medieval times who had 12 children would
have enjoyed the same conditions. That is to say, among the kinds of
medieval families we read about here. Almost by definition, they will be
of the wealthy sort. This means to say, that I don't think we can
"safely conclude that for 12 children to reach maturity, about the same
number should have died in infancy." That may be so in the poorer
families, but not in necessarily in the wealthier families, where one or
two may have died in battle, or of consumption, chicken pox or other
ailments not usually associated with poverty. (As to consumption, i.e.
TB, not difficult for a wealthy person to catch, from contaminated milk,
particularly if they have the run of the home farm.)
Today's girls start their periods a little earlier than a generation ago
when the average was about 14. But in 1994 (1993?) the youngest mother
in the world was aged 8 when she had twins. In the Victorian era,
periods started averagely at about 17/18. Such averages always mean
there are those who start earlier, and later. On the assumption that the
average age to start periods in medieval times was about, say, 17, then
that allows for unusual girls to start at, say, 13, or so. This is one
of the reasons why betrothed couples had to wait until the girls was
about 14 (or 16?) to get married: they were waiting for her periods to
start so that she could start breeding.
Renia
Igor Sklar
> skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > kalinki...@mail.ru (Andrew S. Kalinkin) wrote in message news:<ebb42403.03031...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > made by some historians, that Yaroslav was younger than claimed by Nestor,
> > > but this is not the same thing.
> >
> > Nestor says Vladimir encountered Rogneda in 980, doesn't he? Nestor
> > says Yaroslav's parents were Vladimir and Rogneda, doesn't he? Nestor
> > says Yaroslav died in 1054, doesn't he? Nestor says that Yaroslav was
> > aged 76, doesn't he? If you think all of the above statements are
> > true, you have serious problems with arithmetics.
>
> It is hardly a great discovery that chronology isn't Nestor's strong point.
> However Iakov the Monk states that Vladimir acceeded the Kiev throne in 978,
> so the chronology can be fixed another way. But even if Nestor's evaluation
> of Yaroslav's age is wrong (I have no problem with it), it is a huge and
> completely unsupported leap to jump from "somewhat younger" to "at least 10
> years or more younger".
If you trusted Nestor so much, you should have noticed this phrase
(under 1016): 'I by togda Yaroslav Novgorode let 28'. This is
concerning faulty arithmetics and reliability of Nestor.
If you trusted natural sciences a bit more, you should have read
numerous old articles about the analysis of Yaroslav's skeleton in
1939. The academician Ginzburg resumed the opinion of commission this
way: skeleton belongs to a man aged 60-70, the most probable age of
death being 66 ('On the anthropological analysis of skeletons of
Yaroslav, Anna, and Ingigerd', 1940). This brings us back to 988 once
again.
O. M. Rapov analysed a vast array of sources in his monograph
'Russkaya tserkov' v 9 - pervoy treti 12 v.' (Moscow, 1988). He
concluded that Yaroslav was aged 65 at the time of his death.
Chroniclers described him as an older man on purpose, trying to
justify his rights to the throne, because Yaroslav came to power by
usurpation (p. 321).
This explains everything, Nestor's unwieldy attempts to represent
Yaroslav as a son of Rogneda, for example. Poor Capetians tried to
bolster their waning authority by marrying princesses of imperial
blood. Having been snubbed by Anna Porphyrogeneta (thank you, Mr.
Aronax, for the text of Hugues' letter), they had to content
themselves with Constance of Arles, certainly imperial by name,
remotely imperial by ancestry. The French suceeded in securing Anna's
granddaughter (Anna II, so to speak) as a bride of their king only
half a century later.
Yaroslav had imperial ambitions of his own. He broke relations with
patriarch and appointed his favourite cleric a metropolitan of Kiev.
Being a Christian prince, he resumed practices of his pagan forebears
by sending his eldest son to seize Constantinople in 1043. He probably
thought that Vladimir had better dynastyc claim to be Emperor than
Constantinos IX. Apparently he was right.
Regards, Igor
Igor Sklar
> We know nothing of the kind. It's known that a Frankish prince, cousin
> of Bertha of Tuscany, married a Byzantine princess. Louis III was
> already an Emperor at that time, and you'll agree perhaps that
> 'Emperor' is not quite the same as 'prince'.
>
> BTW, I have Bertha of Tuscany (born 930) as a great niece of Louis III
> (born ca 880), which is not exactly a cousinage if you know what I
> mean.
Actually, it's hard to say what exactly those Greeks meant. Perhaps,
it's their language: they use a single word 'gambros' where Russians
use at least three: zyat' (son-in-law), shurin (wife's brother),
dever' (husband's brother), not to mention such words as svat/svatya,
kum/kuma, svoyak/svoyachenitsa which I cannot render in English for
want of comparable terms. Perhaps it's their mentality: Konstantinos
VII (whose grandfather had been born a peasant, IIRC) described
Adalbert of Tuscany as the father of Hugh of Italy and the son of
Lothair II. If the Emperor himself knew so little about Bosonides (the
family of his 'svat') what can be expected from the Patriarch? It
seems like his words could imply any imaginable degree of kinship with
Berthe of Tuscany...
Pierre Aronax
"Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com...
<...>
> Having been snubbed by Anna Porphyrogeneta (thank you, Mr.
> Aronax, for the text of Hugues' letter)
<...>
It was useless to post it: you didn't read it, and you didn't read my post.
The text didn't speak of Anna, nor of any particular princess. The king asks
for a princess in general, a "filiam sancti imperii", so a daughter of one
of the two reigning emperors. Anna would not have been suitable: she was too
old. But Constantine had daughters of the right age and perhaps that was
known in France.
Pierre
Igor Sklar
> 5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com...
> <...>
> > Nestor says Vladimir encountered Rogneda in 980, doesn't he? Nestor
> > says Yaroslav's parents were Vladimir and Rogneda, doesn't he? Nestor
> > says Yaroslav died in 1054, doesn't he? Nestor says that Yaroslav was
> > aged 76, doesn't he? If you think all of the above statements are
> > true, you have serious problems with arithmetics.
>
> Where is here the proof that Yaroslav was born "at least ten years later"?
> If he had 76 at his death, he is born in 978, so earlier and not later, and
> if he was born in 980, he died at 74 and not 76. Or are you saying that,
> since Nestor's chronology is slightly incoherent, we can imagine what we
> want?
Nestor's chronology is not 'slightly incoherent.' It is severely
falsified. Speaking about Yaroslav's rule in Novgorod (1016), Nestor
gave himself away: he said that Yaroslav was 28. We could say as much
without his blunder. Yaroslav could not be born neither in 978 nor
980, because he was not the eldest son of Vladimir and Rogneda. Not
even the second. Don't forget about sisters and siblings that could
have died in infancy. Yaroslav was one of the youngest in family, and
this was the reason why he had Boris and Gleb to be killed, why he
impisoned Sudislav until the rest of his days, why he had all his
rivals eliminated (except Mstislav).
The first child of Vladimir and Rogneda was Izyaslav. He inherited the
Polock princedom from his grandfather, and went to live here with his
mother ca 986 (he is believed to be 7 then). When Izyaslav died in
1001, he left several heirs; Yaroslav had not been even married by
that time. The second son of Vladimir and Rogneda was Vysheslav, who
was prince of Novgorod (=heir to Kiev) before Yaroslav. Mstislav was
also elder than Yaroslav. The latter tried hard to dispose of him, but
was unsuccessful. Mstislav had a better claim to the throne, and
Yaroslav had to divide power with him in 1024.
Regards, Igor
Andrey Frizyuk
>
> > chronologically that her father was Yaroslav (or Mstislav). I don't
> > know why these possibilities are so readily rejected.
>
> They are not rejected. Such suggestion were made (for Yaroslav).
Do you happen to know why these conjectures are not generally
accepted? I'm not familiar with argument. I recall there is a fresco
portrait of Yaroslav's family in the Sofia Cathedral (Kiev): six sons
and *four* adult daughters are represented. Couldn't Dobronega be the
fourth? IIRC Anastasia was the first to marry (king of Hungary), then
Dobronega (king of Poland), then Anna (king of France), then Elisaveta
(king of Norway). May this sequence imply their comparative ages?
All best wishes, Andrey
Igor Sklar
You did not specify the date of the letter. Robert married a girl with
Bosonid ancestry and some imperial connections in 988, so I assume the
letter had been written before this date. AFAIC Theodora and Zoe (if
born at all) were less than 10 years of age. One the other hand, Anna
was still perfectly marriable.
regards
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> falsified.
Any prove ?
> Speaking about Yaroslav's rule in Novgorod (1016), Nestor
> gave himself away: he said that Yaroslav was 28.
Of course you know that it isn't that simple. There are several
different readings of this statement, and you choose one that
suits you. But even if this was true, he won't be son of Anne
anyway.
> Yaroslav could not be born neither in 978 nor
> 980, because he was not the eldest son of Vladimir and Rogneda. Not
> even the second. Don't forget about sisters and siblings that could
> have died in infancy.
Genealogy is about people who existed, not about those who could exist,
even though we have no evidence for it whatsoever.
> Yaroslav was one of the youngest in family, and
> this was the reason why he had Boris and Gleb to be killed, why he
> impisoned Sudislav until the rest of his days, why he had all his
> rivals eliminated (except Mstislav).
Most medieval princes would like to have their rivals eliminated, if
they could. Such behavior is not specific for youngest sons.
> The first child of Vladimir and Rogneda was Izyaslav. He inherited the
> Polock princedom from his grandfather, and went to live here with his
> mother ca 986 (he is believed to be 7 then).
Izyaslav didn't "inherit" Polotsk from his grandfather, who was killed
before Izyaslav was born. And do you have any evidence for a specific
date except your fantasy ?
> When Izyaslav died in
> 1001, he left several heirs; Yaroslav had not been even married by
> that time.
And now you know the date of Yaroslav's marriage. Strange that everybody
else is ignorant about it.
> The second son of Vladimir and Rogneda was Vysheslav, who
> was prince of Novgorod (=heir to Kiev) before Yaroslav.
Vysheslav was not son of Rogneda.
Oh, I forgot - this is Nestor's falsification, right ?
> Mstislav was
> also elder than Yaroslav.
And he said to Yaroslav: "You are the elder brother". Another falsification,
of course.
> The latter tried hard to dispose of him, but
> was unsuccessful. Mstislav had a better claim to the throne, and
> Yaroslav had to divide power with him in 1024.
And I always thought that Yaroslav had to divide power with Mstislav
because he lost a battle.
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> kalinki...@mail.ru (Andrew S. Kalinkin) wrote in message news:<ebb42403.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > If Dobronega was a granddaughter of Vladimir, it's much more likely
> > > chronologically that her father was Yaroslav (or Mstislav). I don't
> > > know why these possibilities are so readily rejected.
> >
> > They are not rejected. Such suggestion were made (for Yaroslav).
>
> Do you happen to know why these conjectures are not generally
> accepted? I'm not familiar with argument.
I am also not familiar with it, but I think they are not widely accepted
exactly because they are just conjectures. Most historians would be
reluctant to fix what isn't broken.
> I recall there is a fresco
> portrait of Yaroslav's family in the Sofia Cathedral (Kiev): six sons
> and *four* adult daughters are represented. Couldn't Dobronega be the
> fourth?
It is more complicated. IIRC only part of the fresco actually survived,
and there are several different reconstructions of the whole set, that
rely heavily on drawnings that were made when it was still exact. But
it seems that there were more than three daughters by any count.
> IIRC Anastasia was the first to marry (king of Hungary), then
> Dobronega (king of Poland), then Anna (king of France), then Elisaveta
> (king of Norway). May this sequence imply their comparative ages?
Elisaveta was married to Harold in 1043, and Anna to Henri in 1051.
I don't think there is any direct evidence for the date of Anastasia's
marriage with Andrew. Nazarenko thinks that it happened shortly before
1046, basing on his analyze of political situation. But OTOH Andrew's
daughter Adleita, who married Vratislav II of Bohemia, could not be born
later than ca.1040 (but do we have any evidence that she was Anastasia's
daughter?).
Dobronega is also complicated. The only source that dates her marriage
is Nestor, who puts it in 1043. But his chronology isn't precise, and
generally accepted date is 1038, because her two eldest sons, Boleslaw
and Wladislaw, appear to be born in 1039 and 1040 respectively.
Unfortunately both birthdates also aren't above suspicion, because no
source actually say this; they were established by Balzer who should
to "correct" obviously erroneous statements of some Polish annals. His
arguments seem persuative, but I would prefer direct evidence.
Regards,
Andrew
Todd A. Farmerie
OK, well I am hesitant to 'fix' a statement to make it mean what
we want even if it is not obviously erroneous.
Tell me more about this Roman.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> kalinki...@mail.ru (Andrew S. Kalinkin) wrote in message news:<ebb42403.03031...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>him at all. This can't be said about rulers of Poland.
>
> The only son of Western Emperor an obscure figure?!
Yes. Because of his young age he was supplanted, and ended up
with just minor holdings in the hinterlands, and no proven
descendants beyond his own children (although there has been some
well supported speculation).
>>No, it is not just fantasy. Anna was born in 963. So we can reasonably
>>expect that her children, if any, would be born sometimes in 990s. Of
>>course you may say the it isn't biologically impossible for a woman,
>>even in 11th century, to have a child at 48, but this certainly isn't
>>the most plausible scenario.
>
> A millenium ago women were much healthier than now, childbirth at the
> age of 40 was a norm.
I think this is a bit of an overstatement. Even were this the
norm, there has always been a finite and not insignificant rate
of infertility, not just congenital but also secondary to
post-partum complications, so even if a medieval woman (generally
speaking) could have had a child at 40 is not evidence that she
(specifically) did.
>>Greek names of Yaroslav's children are easily explaned by a certain event
>>that happened in Rus in 988. Nothing similar happened in 10th century
>>Provance, so in case of Charles Constantine another explanation is needed.
>
> The name is no more Greek than Roman and by no means as rare as you
> think. A feminine form (Constance) was one of the most common names in
> Western Europe.
And damn near every one of them derives from one 10th century
woman, Constance, wife of Boso of Provence, in the generation
immediately after, and the exact geographic proximity as Charles
Constantine. Thus the use of Constance is evidence, not of
broad-based spontaneous use of Greek/Roman naming, but of a
strong genealogical component to onomastics. (There are other
Greek namings that appear more spontaneous to me, but that has
not stopped authors from producing genealogical schemes to
explain them all.)
> Though I haven't made a systematic study, I recall
> Constantine king of Scotland as early as 862. Was he also a son of
> Byzantine princess?
No, but you are arguing cross-purposes. If such names could be
given without a genealogical connection, then your argument for
Anna being mother of Vladimir's Greek-named children is shot. In
fact, you can not draw such Europe-wide comparisons - each naming
event must be evaluated in its local, cultural, and temporal
context, and there was a world of difference between the 10th
century Western Empire and Russia - religious history, political
stability, and even the personal history of the parents all have
effects on onomastic practices.
taf
Pierre Aronax
"Igor Sklar" <skla...@yandex.ru> a écrit dans le message de news:
5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com...
> "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3e70f84a$0$23244$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>...
<...>
> > It was useless to post it: you didn't read it, and you didn't read my
post.
> > The text didn't speak of Anna, nor of any particular princess. The king
asks
> > for a princess in general, a "filiam sancti imperii", so a daughter of
one
> > of the two reigning emperors. Anna would not have been suitable: she was
too
> > old. But Constantine had daughters of the right age and perhaps that was
> > known in France.
> >
> > Pierre
>
> You did not specify the date of the letter. Robert married a girl with
> Bosonid ancestry and some imperial connections in 988,
The letter is not dated, as you can see by its text: it is considered to be
of 988. Since Hugh became king in 987 and Robert married in 988/989, the
date makes no problem.
> so I assume the
> letter had been written before this date. AFAIC Theodora and Zoe (if
> born at all) were less than 10 years of age. One the other hand, Anna
> was still perfectly marriable.
Zoe was exactly 10, and not "less than 10", in 988, but she was
Constantine's second daughter: as I already said, his first daughter was
Eudokia, who must so have been at least around 12, so the age of marriage.
Robert was around 16. On the other hand, Anna was at least 25.
Of course, finally Robert married little time later a woman who was some 15
years older than him, so much more than Anna, but this was for imperative
strategic reasons. As I said, I don't know and I'm not sure King Hugh had
any particular daughter in mind when he wrote his letter, but what is sure
is that what he asked for was a daughter of one of the reigning emperors, a
"filia sancti imperii" ("a daughter of the holy empire", the Byzantine
emperors calling themselves in their acts "My Empire", "hè Basileia mou",
something like "Our Majesty"). Precisely, we know the older daughter of
Constantine was only four years younger than Robert, perhaps less, when her
aunt was 15 years older than him, perhaps more: so, who was the most
suitable wife for the young King? I think that, if the imperial court had
suggested a marriage with Anna, the Frankish court will have politely
dismissed it: why bother to accept a wife with a so great difference of age,
when there was no political gain to hope? The only purpose of this projected
union was to find for Robert a wife with suitable ancestry to give him
children.
Anyway, it seems Hugh didn't even wait an answer from Constantinople before
being compeled by his fragile position to marry his son with a much more
older wife, but with an immediate political advantage: control over the
county of Flanders. The purpose of this marriage was to strengthen the
situation of the dynasty, and not, as the planned Byzantine marriage, to
give a posterity to Robert: so, some three years latter, Robert repudiated
his wife "because she was too old", as wrote Richer.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3e73186c$0$8046$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net...
<...>
> Zoe was exactly 10, and not "less than 10", in 988, but she was
> Constantine's second daughter: as I already said, his first daughter was
> Eudokia, who must so have been at least around 12, so the age of marriage.
> Robert was around 16. On the other hand, Anna was at least 25.
>
>
>
> Of course, finally Robert married little time later a woman who was some
15
> years older than him, so much more than Anna, but this was for imperative
> strategic reasons. As I said, I don't know and I'm not sure King Hugh had
> any particular daughter in mind when he wrote his letter, but what is sure
> is that what he asked for was a daughter of one of the reigning emperors,
a
> "filia sancti imperii" ("a daughter of the holy empire", the Byzantine
> emperors calling themselves in their acts "My Empire", "hè Basileia mou",
> something like "Our Majesty"). Precisely, we know the older daughter of
> Constantine was only four years younger than Robert, perhaps less, when
her
> aunt was 15 years older than him, perhaps more:
Read "10 years older than him, perhaps more".
Igor Sklar
> > Nestor's chronology is not 'slightly incoherent.' It is severely
> > falsified.
>
> Any prove ?
Just compare dates of Russian quests to Constantinople given by Nestor
and Byzantine authors.
> > Speaking about Yaroslav's rule in Novgorod (1016), Nestor
> > gave himself away: he said that Yaroslav was 28.
>
> Of course you know that it isn't that simple.
No, I don't.
> There are several
> different readings of this statement, and you choose one that
> suits you.
When it's written 'Yaroslav was 28', I prefer to believe my eyes.
Others didn't because they were sure Yaroslav had been born in
980/978. But now this dating is outdated, and there's no need to twist
evidence in improbable ways any more.
> But even if this was true, he won't be son of Anne anyway.
I'd be grateful for any arguments to support this statement (if it's
not a pure demagogy of course).
> > Yaroslav could not be born neither in 978 nor
> > 980, because he was not the eldest son of Vladimir and Rogneda. Not
> > even the second. Don't forget about sisters and siblings that could
> > have died in infancy.
>
> Genealogy is about people who existed, not about those who could exist,
> even though we have no evidence for it whatsoever.
>
> > Yaroslav was one of the youngest in family, and
> > this was the reason why he had Boris and Gleb to be killed, why he
> > imprisoned Sudislav until the rest of his days, why he had all his
> > rivals eliminated (except Mstislav).
>
> Most medieval princes would like to have their rivals eliminated, if
> they could. Such behavior is not specific for youngest sons.
There were not so many rulers who eliminated all their brothers to
pave their way to the throne. You know that Vladimir and Yaroslav did
that, and for the same reason too: because they had no rights to
succession. Otherwise I can't see any reason in killing Boris and Gleb
(if Yaroslav was not a homicidal maniac, of course).
> > The first child of Vladimir and Rogneda was Izyaslav. He inherited the
> > Polock princedom from his grandfather, and went to live here with his
> > mother ca 986 (he is believed to be 7 then).
>
> Izyaslav didn't "inherit" Polotsk from his grandfather, who was killed
> before Izyaslav was born.
Don't you agree that Izyaslav was the eldest kid of Rogneda?
> And do you have any evidence for a specific date except your fantasy ?
I think you are able to name the chronicle that tells a story of
Rogneda and Izyaslav. Having decided to kill Vladimir, Rogneda asked
Izyaslav to take an axe and expect his appearance near the door, etc.
The story is a fable. But archaelogists tell us that the fort of
Izyaslavl (Zaslavl) was founded at the end of the 10th cent., that
Polotsk was really burnt down at that time, and had to be renovated on
other spot, etc.
The date of Rogneda's divorce is accepted by most scholars, but I
don't know what is the evidence behind it. One thing I'm sure of, is
that Rogneda couldn't be the mother of Yaroslav. In 988, when Rus was
christened and Yaroslav was born, she had been living with her eldest
son in Izyaslavl for several years. I'm not sure who Yaroslav's mother
was, but definitely not Rogneda: this is impossible chronologically.
> > When Izyaslav died in
> > 1001, he left several heirs; Yaroslav had not been even married by
> > that time.
>
> And now you know the date of Yaroslav's marriage. Strange that everybody
> else is ignorant about it.
If you're ignorant about it, it doesn't mean there is no room for a
reasonable conjecture. The 1st wife of Yaroslav (presumably named
Anna) died in 1018/19. (She is last mentioned by Titmar under
14-August-1018, when she was imprisoned by Boleslaw; a year later
Yaroslav married Ingigerd.) The analysis of Anna's bones testified
that they belong to a woman of 30-35 years, i.e. she was born about
988. I think that marriage before the age of 13 is quite implausible
(though not out of question), that's why Yaroslav was not married in
1001.
> > Mstislav was also elder than Yaroslav.
>
> And he said to Yaroslav: "You are the elder brother". Another falsification,
> of course.
Of course. Though we can make no solid conclusions by chronology in
this case, it's quite suggestive that Mstislav predeceased Yaroslav by
18 years, and he had an adult son who was elder than Yaroslav's
children (died in 1032). Otherwise, why did he send murderers to a
younger brother who couldn't be a potential claimant to the throne?
> > The latter tried hard to dispose of him, but
> > was unsuccessful. Mstislav had a better claim to the throne, and
> > Yaroslav had to divide power with him in 1024.
>
> And I always thought that Yaroslav had to divide power with Mstislav
> because he lost a battle.
It remains to be explained why Yaroslav didn't divide power with
Svyatopolk, having lost battles with him more than once.
Regards, Igor
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> kalinki...@mail.ru (Andrew S. Kalinkin) wrote in message news:<ebb42403.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Nestor's chronology is not 'slightly incoherent.' It is severely
> > > falsified.
> >
> > Any prove ?
>
> Just compare dates of Russian quests to Constantinople given by Nestor
> and Byzantine authors.
Which one? 941? 1043? And what is the point anyway?
> > > Speaking about Yaroslav's rule in Novgorod (1016), Nestor
> > > gave himself away: he said that Yaroslav was 28.
> >
> > Of course you know that it isn't that simple.
>
> No, I don't.
>
> > There are several
> > different readings of this statement, and you choose one that
> > suits you.
>
> When it's written 'Yaroslav was 28', I prefer to believe my eyes.
Really? And where exactly you saw this statement?
What about the word 'Novegorode'? With it this has totally different
meaning - Yaroslav was in Novgorod for 28 years. Then it say nothing
about his age at all.
And to make things worse, there are variants with the numbers 18 or 38,
instead of 28.
> > But even if this was true, he won't be son of Anne anyway.
>
> I'd be grateful for any arguments to support this statement (if it's
> not a pure demagogy of course).
This is simple. To be born in 988, Yaroslav should be conceived in 987
(or in the very first months of 988 at the latest). This is before
arrival of Anna.
Note also that the date of marriage between Vladimir and Anna is VERY
far from certain. You take as granted that it happened in 988, while
many historians, for the reasons that have nothing to do with Yaroslav's
parentage, date it 989 or even 990. But moving it backward (to 987) is
out of question.
> > > Yaroslav was one of the youngest in family, and
> > > this was the reason why he had Boris and Gleb to be killed, why he
> > > imprisoned Sudislav until the rest of his days, why he had all his
> > > rivals eliminated (except Mstislav).
> >
> > Most medieval princes would like to have their rivals eliminated, if
> > they could. Such behavior is not specific for youngest sons.
>
> There were not so many rulers who eliminated all their brothers to
> pave their way to the throne. You know that Vladimir and Yaroslav did
> that, and for the same reason too: because they had no rights to
> succession.
To speak about 'rights' in 10-11th century context, as if there was
some sort of established succession law, is absurd. In theory all
king's (prince's, whatever) sons had equal rights. In practice this
depended of the number of followers he could gather and his luck in
battle. His age, except extreme cases (if he happen to be a minor,
for example) was irrelevant.
> Otherwise I can't see any reason in killing Boris and Gleb
> (if Yaroslav was not a homicidal maniac, of course).
Killing the rival pretendent during the succession war is an act
of homicidal maniac ???
> > > The first child of Vladimir and Rogneda was Izyaslav. He inherited the
> > > Polock princedom from his grandfather, and went to live here with his
> > > mother ca 986 (he is believed to be 7 then).
> >
> > Izyaslav didn't "inherit" Polotsk from his grandfather, who was killed
> > before Izyaslav was born.
>
> Don't you agree that Izyaslav was the eldest kid of Rogneda?
Yes. So what ?
> > And do you have any evidence for a specific date except your fantasy ?
>
> I think you are able to name the chronicle that tells a story of
> Rogneda and Izyaslav.
It is Laurentian chronicle, the entry for year 6636.
> Having decided to kill Vladimir, Rogneda asked
> Izyaslav to take an axe and expect his appearance near the door, etc.
> The story is a fable.
I am glad you agree at least that.
If you are so fond of fables, you may remember another one - how Vladimir
repudiated Rogneda after his marriage with Anna and offered her to marry
any noble she choose, but she refused and became a nun, and how Yaroslav,
who witnessed the scene, was cured by the stress and got an ability to
walk. I hope you can find the chronicle that tells this story himself.
> But archaelogists tell us that the fort of
> Izyaslavl (Zaslavl) was founded at the end of the 10th cent., that
> Polotsk was really burnt down at that time, and had to be renovated on
> other spot, etc.
"end of 10th century" not necessary means ca.986, and we know that
Izyaslav got Polotsk in late 10th century anyway. And archaelogy can
say nothing about Rogneda's whereabouts (although there is nothing
impossible in idea that she lived with Izyaslav after divorce, this
can't be proven).
> > > When Izyaslav died in
> > > 1001, he left several heirs; Yaroslav had not been even married by
> > > that time.
> >
> > And now you know the date of Yaroslav's marriage. Strange that everybody
> > else is ignorant about it.
>
> If you're ignorant about it, it doesn't mean there is no room for a
> reasonable conjecture. The 1st wife of Yaroslav (presumably named
> Anna) died in 1018/19. (She is last mentioned by Titmar under
> 14-August-1018, when she was imprisoned by Boleslaw; a year later
> Yaroslav married Ingigerd.) The analysis of Anna's bones testified
> that they belong to a woman of 30-35 years, i.e. she was born about
> 988. I think that marriage before the age of 13 is quite implausible
> (though not out of question), that's why Yaroslav was not married in
> 1001.
And how circa 30-35 was suddenly turned into exactly 30 ? If she was 35
in 1018, then she was 18 in 1001, and so could be already married for
several years.
> > > Mstislav was also elder than Yaroslav.
> >
> > And he said to Yaroslav: "You are the elder brother". Another falsification,
> > of course.
>
> Of course. Though we can make no solid conclusions by chronology in
> this case, it's quite suggestive that Mstislav predeceased Yaroslav by
> 18 years
So the brother who died earlier is always the eldest ? And any evidence
for the contrary should be forged.
> and he had an adult son who was elder than Yaroslav's
> children (died in 1032).
An adult son ??? It is amazing how much info some can extract from only
three words!
(BTW, Yaroslav had a son who died ca.1020)
> Otherwise, why did he send murderers to a
> younger brother who couldn't be a potential claimant to the throne?
What are you talking about ?
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew S. Kalinkin
One of Vladimir's numerous sons had a Slavic name Boris and christian
name Roman. He appears to be his father's favourite and designated
successor. Then we have two different versions of his subsequent fate.
According to agiografic sources after Vladimir's death Boris-Roman
voluntarily renounced the succession in favour of his evil elder brother
Svyatopolk, who as reward got him murdered. Later he was declared a
saint martyr. The cult of saint martyrs Boris and Gleb (another brother
supposedly murdered by Svyatopolk) was (and to some extent is) one of
the most popular in Russia.
However "Eymund saga" tells that after Vladimir's death Boris ruled in
Kiev (as was expected). However he inherited also conflict with Yaroslav,
who already rebelled against Kiev when Vladimir was still alive. So an
inevitable war started, Boris was defeated and forced into exile. After
several unsuccessful attempts to regain his throne he was killed by
Yaroslav's scandinavian mercenaries.
Take your pick.
Regards,
Andrew
Igor Sklar
> skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > kalinki...@mail.ru (Andrew S. Kalinkin) wrote in message news:<ebb42403.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Nestor's chronology is not 'slightly incoherent.' It is severely
> > > > falsified.
> > >
> > > Any prove ?
> >
> > Just compare dates of Russian quests to Constantinople given by Nestor
> > and Byzantine authors.
>
> Which one? 941? 1043? And what is the point anyway?
>
> > > > Speaking about Yaroslav's rule in Novgorod (1016), Nestor
> > > > gave himself away: he said that Yaroslav was 28.
> > >
> > > Of course you know that it isn't that simple.
> >
> > No, I don't.
> >
> > > There are several
> > > different readings of this statement, and you choose one that
> > > suits you.
> >
> > When it's written 'Yaroslav was 28', I prefer to believe my eyes.
>
> Really? And where exactly you saw this statement?
You should read Nestor sometime in future.
> What about the word 'Novegorode'?
The last letter added by scribes who could not understand Nestor's
meaning when he gives 3 different dates of Yaroslav's birth.
> With it this has totally different
> meaning - Yaroslav was in Novgorod for 28 years. Then it say nothing
> about his age at all.
Hmm... And where was Vysheslav all this time? And who founded
Yaroslavl on the Volga in 1010? A prince of Novgorod?
> And to make things worse, there are variants with the numbers 18 or 38,
> instead of 28.
Never heard about it. Both *variants* of the generally accepted text
were added to explain Nestor's faulty chronology.
> > > But even if this was true, he won't be son of Anne anyway.
> >
> > I'd be grateful for any arguments to support this statement (if it's
> > not a pure demagogy of course).
>
> This is simple. To be born in 988, Yaroslav should be conceived in 987
> (or in the very first months of 988 at the latest).
Yes. Anyway, 9 months more 9 months less...
> Note also that the date of marriage between Vladimir and Anna is VERY
> far from certain. You take as granted that it happened in 988, while
> many historians, for the reasons that have nothing to do with Yaroslav's
> parentage, date it 989 or even 990. But moving it backward (to 987) is
> out of question.
Yaroslav could not be born before 988, this is certain. But 989 and
990 are also plausible dates.
> > > > Yaroslav was one of the youngest in family, and
> > > > this was the reason why he had Boris and Gleb to be killed, why he
> > > > imprisoned Sudislav until the rest of his days, why he had all his
> > > > rivals eliminated (except Mstislav).
> > >
> > > Most medieval princes would like to have their rivals eliminated, if
> > > they could. Such behavior is not specific for youngest sons.
> >
> > There were not so many rulers who eliminated all their brothers to
> > pave their way to the throne. You know that Vladimir and Yaroslav did
> > that, and for the same reason too: because they had no rights to
> > succession.
>
> To speak about 'rights' in 10-11th century context, as if there was
> some sort of established succession law, is absurd. In theory all
> king's (prince's, whatever) sons had equal rights.
WHAT?? Why the eldest son of ruling prince always received Novgorod?
What about the complex seniority of princely seats, their succession,
etc, etc.? You should certainly read sources more often. And classical
historians too.
> In practice this
> depended of the number of followers he could gather and his luck in
> battle. His age, except extreme cases (if he happen to be a minor,
> for example) was irrelevant.
Let me remind you in case you forgot. Ilya and Vladimir were elder
sons and heirs apparent (=rulers of Novgorod) but predeceased their
father. Yaroslav was succeeded first by Izyaslav, his eldest son, then
by Svyatoslav, his 2nd son, then by Vsevolod, the 3rd son... Vsevolod
was the favourite son of Yaroslav, but the latter could not make him
his heir at the expense of elder brothers.
> > Otherwise I can't see any reason in killing Boris and Gleb
> > (if Yaroslav was not a homicidal maniac, of course).
>
> Killing the rival pretendent during the succession war is an act
> of homicidal maniac ???
Boris and Gleb could be rival claimants only if they were elder than
Yaroslav.
> > > > The first child of Vladimir and Rogneda was Izyaslav. He inherited the
> > > > Polock princedom from his grandfather, and went to live here with his
> > > > mother ca 986 (he is believed to be 7 then).
> > >
> > > Izyaslav didn't "inherit" Polotsk from his grandfather, who was killed
> > > before Izyaslav was born.
> >
> > Don't you agree that Izyaslav was the eldest kid of Rogneda?
>
> Yes. So what ?
So he received Polotsk as the eldest grandson of Rogvolod, i.e. he
inherited it.
> > > And do you have any evidence for a specific date except your fantasy ?
> >
> > I think you are able to name the chronicle that tells a story of
> > Rogneda and Izyaslav.
>
> It is Laurentian chronicle, the entry for year 6636.
Ah!
> > Having decided to kill Vladimir, Rogneda asked
> > Izyaslav to take an axe and expect his appearance near the door, etc.
> > The story is a fable.
>
> I am glad you agree at least that.
>
> If you are so fond of fables, you may remember another one - how Vladimir
> repudiated Rogneda after his marriage with Anna and offered her to marry
> any noble she choose, but she refused and became a nun, and how Yaroslav,
> who witnessed the scene, was cured by the stress and got an ability to
> walk. I hope you can find the chronicle that tells this story himself.
Tver chronicle is the same that claims Boris and Gleb were children of
Anna... I'm inclined to disbelieve this story too, because it makes
Yaroslav son of Rogneda. Norse sagas explain Yaroslav's lameness by an
arrow wound that he got during some siege.
> > But archaelogists tell us that the fort of
> > Izyaslavl (Zaslavl) was founded at the end of the 10th cent., that
> > Polotsk was really burnt down at that time, and had to be renovated on
> > other spot, etc.
>
> "end of 10th century" not necessary means ca.986, and we know that
> Izyaslav got Polotsk in late 10th century anyway. And archaelogy can
> say nothing about Rogneda's whereabouts (although there is nothing
> impossible in idea that she lived with Izyaslav after divorce, this
> can't be proven).
You missed my point. The story says that divorced Rogneda built a fort
called Izyaslavl (Polotsk was still in ruins) to live here with her
son. Archaeologists confirm that Izyaslavl (i.e., city of Izyaslav)
was founded at that time. I find these coincidences pretty suggestive.
> > > > When Izyaslav died in
> > > > 1001, he left several heirs; Yaroslav had not been even married by
> > > > that time.
> > >
> > > And now you know the date of Yaroslav's marriage. Strange that everybody
> > > else is ignorant about it.
> >
> > If you're ignorant about it, it doesn't mean there is no room for a
> > reasonable conjecture. The 1st wife of Yaroslav (presumably named
> > Anna) died in 1018/19. (She is last mentioned by Titmar under
> > 14-August-1018, when she was imprisoned by Boleslaw; a year later
> > Yaroslav married Ingigerd.) The analysis of Anna's bones testified
> > that they belong to a woman of 30-35 years, i.e. she was born about
> > 988. I think that marriage before the age of 13 is quite implausible
> > (though not out of question), that's why Yaroslav was not married in
> > 1001.
>
> And how circa 30-35 was suddenly turned into exactly 30 ? If she was 35
> in 1018, then she was 18 in 1001, and so could be already married for
> several years.
I thought 30, because Yaroslav was born in 988, and his wife could not
be elder than he.
> > > > Mstislav was also elder than Yaroslav.
> > >
> > > And he said to Yaroslav: "You are the elder brother". Another falsification,
> > > of course.
> >
> > Of course. Though we can make no solid conclusions by chronology in
> > this case, it's quite suggestive that Mstislav predeceased Yaroslav by
> > 18 years
>
> So the brother who died earlier is always the eldest ? And any evidence
> for the contrary should be forged.
I wrote 'we can make no solid conclusions' and 'suggestive' but you
didn't read it.
> > and he had an adult son who was elder than Yaroslav's
> > children (died in 1032).
>
> An adult son ???
IIRC you suggested that he was married to a sister of Canute, a woman
who was about 30 in 1032.
> > Otherwise, why did he send murderers to a
> > younger brother who couldn't be a potential claimant to the throne?
>
> What are you talking about ?
Once again, read Nestor, it's useful (sometimes).
regards
Igor Sklar
> > Andrew S. Kalinkin wrote:
> > > "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3E697722...@interfold.com>...
> > >
> > >>Igor Sklar wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>It is stated there that Kasimir
> > >>>married Maria (also known as Dobronega), the daughter of Russian
> > >>>prince Roman. There was no Russian prince called Roman, but the father
> > >>>of Anna was Romanos II. Perhaps Byzantines were called something like
> > >>>'Romans' in Polish?
> > >>
> > >>I am always hesitant to take an obviously erroneous statement and
> > >>try to 'fix it' by making it mean what we want it to mean.
> > >
> > >
> > > I am not sure that this statement is "obviously erroneous". There was a
> > > Roman in Rurikid family, and he is chronologically possible father for
> > > Dobronega. It is "filiam Odone" bit that is hard to explain.
> >
> > OK, well I am hesitant to 'fix' a statement to make it mean what
> > we want even if it is not obviously erroneous.
> >
> > Tell me more about this Roman.
>
> One of Vladimir's numerous sons had a Slavic name Boris and christian
> name Roman.
Not Slavic but Eastern. It was a dynastic name of Bulgarian khans.
Boris' mother is said by Nestor to be a Bulgarian, named Adil. This is
another possible explanation of the mysterious phrase: Dobronega,
daughter of Roman/Boris, son of Adil (misunderstood as Oda).
Some people are fond of descents from Attila. Here is a possibility:
Attila's descendants were rulers of Volga Bulgaria (these Bulgarians
spoke the language of Huns), Adil of Bulgaria was the mother of Boris,
his daughter Dobronega is the ancestress of European royalty. :))
> He appears to be his father's favourite and designated
> successor.
In your imagination? Vladimir's successors were either princes of
Novgorod (Vysheslav, Yaroslav) or (according to Titmar) Svyatopolk. We
should keep in mind that Russian sources are very partial to Boris,
because he was (with his brother) the first Russian to be canonised.
> Then we have two different versions of his subsequent fate.
> According to agiografic sources after Vladimir's death Boris-Roman
> voluntarily renounced the succession in favour of his evil elder brother
> Svyatopolk, who as reward got him murdered. Later he was declared a
> saint martyr. The cult of saint martyrs Boris and Gleb (another brother
> supposedly murdered by Svyatopolk) was (and to some extent is) one of
> the most popular in Russia.
>
> However "Eymund saga" tells that after Vladimir's death Boris ruled in
> Kiev (as was expected). However he inherited also conflict with Yaroslav,
> who already rebelled against Kiev when Vladimir was still alive. So an
> inevitable war started, Boris was defeated and forced into exile. After
> several unsuccessful attempts to regain his throne he was killed by
> Yaroslav's scandinavian mercenaries.
Provided that Yaroslav was born about 988 and Boris/Gleb were younger
than him (though this is a moot point), there are two possible
versions of their parentage:
1) they were illegitimate children of Vladimir and Adil, that's why
Bulgarian names, etc;
2) they were children of Vladimir from his only 'lawful' marriage
(with Anna), that's why he loved them more than the rest, etc.
It's remarkable that two lives of Boris and Gleb compiled in the 11th
century do not specify the name of their mother. Either it was too
well known (Anna), or they did not want to attract attention to their
illegitimacy (Adil).
Take you pick.
Todd A. Farmerie
> We know nothing of the kind. It's known that a Frankish prince, cousin
> of Bertha of Tuscany, married a Byzantine princess. Louis III was
> already an Emperor at that time, and you'll agree perhaps that
> 'Emperor' is not quite the same as 'prince'.
>
> BTW, I have Bertha of Tuscany (born 930) as a great niece of Louis III
> (born ca 880), which is not exactly a cousinage if you know what I
> mean.
This is not correct. Louis was grandson of Louis II, brother of
Lothair II, ancestor of Bertha. Thus they were second cousins,
once removed.
taf
Igor Sklar
> Igor Sklar wrote:
>
> > We know nothing of the kind. It's known that a Frankish prince, cousin
> > of Bertha of Tuscany, married a Byzantine princess. Louis III was
> > already an Emperor at that time, and you'll agree perhaps that
> > 'Emperor' is not quite the same as 'prince'.
> >
> > BTW, I have Bertha of Tuscany (born 930) as a great niece of Louis III
> > (born ca 880), which is not exactly a cousinage if you know what I
> > mean.
Perhaps my info is wrong. Bertha's (930-965) parents were Boson of
Tuscany and Willa II of Burgundy. They were married in 912. Willa's
parents were Rudolf I of Burgundy (+912) and Willa I of Burgundy
(873-929). Willa I was the elder sister of Louis III. Hence, Bertha of
Tuscany was a great niece of Louis III.
> This is not correct. Louis was grandson of Louis II, brother of
> Lothair II, ancestor of Bertha. Thus they were second cousins,
> once removed.
I would say that Bertha was a distant niece (anepsios) of Louis III
rather than a cousin. Considering Byzantine level of genealogical
culture, it seems highly unlikely that Greeks were aware of such
complex relations among barbarian princes as described by you.
regards
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> kalinki...@mail.ru (Andrew S. Kalinkin) wrote in message news:<ebb42403.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > kalinki...@mail.ru (Andrew S. Kalinkin) wrote in message news:<ebb42403.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > Nestor's chronology is not 'slightly incoherent.' It is severely
> > > > > falsified.
> > > >
> > > > Any prove ?
> > >
> > > Just compare dates of Russian quests to Constantinople given by Nestor
> > > and Byzantine authors.
> >
> > Which one? 941? 1043? And what is the point anyway?
And where is promised prove of Nestor's "falsifications" ?
> >
> > > > > Speaking about Yaroslav's rule in Novgorod (1016), Nestor
> > > > > gave himself away: he said that Yaroslav was 28.
> > > >
> > > > Of course you know that it isn't that simple.
> > >
> > > No, I don't.
> > >
> > > > There are several
> > > > different readings of this statement, and you choose one that
> > > > suits you.
> > >
> > > When it's written 'Yaroslav was 28', I prefer to believe my eyes.
> >
> > Really? And where exactly you saw this statement?
>
> You should read Nestor sometime in future.
This would be really great. Unfortunately I don't think I'll do it. There
is such minor detail that his work didn't survive. Of course this won't
stop you, but alas, everyone else can read only much later chronicles
(Laurentian, Ipatievan, Radziwill etc.) that incorporate the text of
Nestor's work, and even this not in original form, but from one of the
two revisions compiled during Monomakh's reign.
> > What about the word 'Novegorode'?
>
> The last letter added by scribes who could not understand Nestor's
> meaning when he gives 3 different dates of Yaroslav's birth.
How simple. The variant that you like is correct. The variant you don't
like is in error by definition. Very convenient.
> > With it this has totally different
> > meaning - Yaroslav was in Novgorod for 28 years. Then it say nothing
> > about his age at all.
>
> Hmm... And where was Vysheslav all this time? And who founded
> Yaroslavl on the Volga in 1010? A prince of Novgorod?
First, if we ignore any evidence that doesn't fit, as you do, we can easily
make a scenario where this will be correct. In fact we will even need to
twist much less facts than in your scenario, because we don't know neither
date of Vysheslav's date, nor exact foundation date of Yaroslavl.
Second, even if this particular statement is erroneous (it probably is),
this doesn't prove that Nestor didn't write it.
> > And to make things worse, there are variants with the numbers 18 or 38,
> > instead of 28.
>
> Never heard about it. Both *variants* of the generally accepted text
> were added to explain Nestor's faulty chronology.
I see that even if you never heard about something, it won't stop you from
making a conclusion.
BTW, what is "generally accepted text of Nestor" ?
> > > > But even if this was true, he won't be son of Anne anyway.
> > >
> > > I'd be grateful for any arguments to support this statement (if it's
> > > not a pure demagogy of course).
> >
> > This is simple. To be born in 988, Yaroslav should be conceived in 987
> > (or in the very first months of 988 at the latest).
>
> Yes. Anyway, 9 months more 9 months less...
>
> > Note also that the date of marriage between Vladimir and Anna is VERY
> > far from certain. You take as granted that it happened in 988, while
> > many historians, for the reasons that have nothing to do with Yaroslav's
> > parentage, date it 989 or even 990. But moving it backward (to 987) is
> > out of question.
>
> Yaroslav could not be born before 988, this is certain.
Sure. Because you say so. I know, this is more than enough, but maybe
there is some other reason for it ?
> But 989 and
> 990 are also plausible dates.
So 28 not necessary means 28. It may be 26, 25, whatever. The only
condition is that it MUST fit into your pet theory.
> > > > > Yaroslav was one of the youngest in family, and
> > > > > this was the reason why he had Boris and Gleb to be killed, why he
> > > > > imprisoned Sudislav until the rest of his days, why he had all his
> > > > > rivals eliminated (except Mstislav).
> > > >
> > > > Most medieval princes would like to have their rivals eliminated, if
> > > > they could. Such behavior is not specific for youngest sons.
> > >
> > > There were not so many rulers who eliminated all their brothers to
> > > pave their way to the throne. You know that Vladimir and Yaroslav did
> > > that, and for the same reason too: because they had no rights to
> > > succession.
> >
> > To speak about 'rights' in 10-11th century context, as if there was
> > some sort of established succession law, is absurd. In theory all
> > king's (prince's, whatever) sons had equal rights.
>
> WHAT?? Why the eldest son of ruling prince always received Novgorod?
Really? Svyatoslav first didn't want ot send anyone to Novgorod at all.
When Novgorodians pressed the case, he send them the son about whom he
cared very little. Vladimir first gave Novgorod to Vysheslav, his eldest
son, but after his death - to Yaroslav, who certainly wasn't the eldest
(and according to your fantasies was one of the youngest, but somehow you
don't see the contradiction between your statements). You have a very
strange definition of the word "always".
> What about the complex seniority of princely seats, their succession,
> etc, etc.?
When ? No such thing existed in 10th and early 11th century. That it
developed at later date is irrelevant.
> You should certainly read sources more often. And classical
> historians too.
You are realyy good in book recommendations. Did you try to to read
something himself ? In this case I recommend to start with Presnyakov's
"Princely law of Ancient Rus") ("Knyazhee pravo drevney Rusi").
> > In practice this
> > depended of the number of followers he could gather and his luck in
> > battle. His age, except extreme cases (if he happen to be a minor,
> > for example) was irrelevant.
>
> Let me remind you in case you forgot. Ilya and Vladimir were elder
> sons and heirs apparent (=rulers of Novgorod) but predeceased their
> father. Yaroslav was succeeded first by Izyaslav, his eldest son, then
> by Svyatoslav, his 2nd son, then by Vsevolod, the 3rd son... Vsevolod
> was the favourite son of Yaroslav, but the latter could not make him
> his heir at the expense of elder brothers.
OK, let's remind something to you. Svyatoslav was succeded by his all
three sons, who were totally independent in their domains and fought
each other until Vladimir gained victory and got all. Vladimir again
was "succeeded" by all his sons who were alive and had some reasonable
force at their disposal (Boris, Svyatopolk, Yaroslav, Mstislav), and
again they fough each other until Yaroslav eliminated and/or outlived
all his rivals and emerged as sole ruler. Yaroslav was the first who
tried to institute some order in this system. However contrary to what
you say he wasn't succeeded by his eldest (surviving) son Izyaslav only.
Instead Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod received each their own part
of inheritance. Yaroslav tried (for the first time) to give Izyaslv some
authority over his brothers (he was designated to be "in father's place"
for them), but as you know, it didn't work, and when Izyaslav thought
too much about his authority, he was kicked out.
> > > Otherwise I can't see any reason in killing Boris and Gleb
> > > (if Yaroslav was not a homicidal maniac, of course).
> >
> > Killing the rival pretendent during the succession war is an act
> > of homicidal maniac ???
>
> Boris and Gleb could be rival claimants only if they were elder than
> Yaroslav.
Really ? Someone should to say this to Boris.
> > > > > The first child of Vladimir and Rogneda was Izyaslav. He inherited the
> > > > > Polock princedom from his grandfather, and went to live here with his
> > > > > mother ca 986 (he is believed to be 7 then).
> > > >
> > > > Izyaslav didn't "inherit" Polotsk from his grandfather, who was killed
> > > > before Izyaslav was born.
> > >
> > > Don't you agree that Izyaslav was the eldest kid of Rogneda?
> >
> > Yes. So what ?
>
> So he received Polotsk as the eldest grandson of Rogvolod, i.e. he
> inherited it.
You have some very unusual definition of the word "inherit". Izyaslav
received Polotsk from his father, not from his long dead grandfather.
Oh please! You just repeat the classic story about a hunter, who told a
tale how he killed a deer under an oak, and when someone disbelieved,
showed the oak as a prove. So Izyaslavl was founded (surprise) during
the reign of Izyaslav, and this somehow confirms the story that, as you
himself agree, is pure fable.
> > > > > When Izyaslav died in
> > > > > 1001, he left several heirs; Yaroslav had not been even married by
> > > > > that time.
> > > >
> > > > And now you know the date of Yaroslav's marriage. Strange that everybody
> > > > else is ignorant about it.
> > >
> > > If you're ignorant about it, it doesn't mean there is no room for a
> > > reasonable conjecture. The 1st wife of Yaroslav (presumably named
> > > Anna) died in 1018/19. (She is last mentioned by Titmar under
> > > 14-August-1018, when she was imprisoned by Boleslaw; a year later
> > > Yaroslav married Ingigerd.) The analysis of Anna's bones testified
> > > that they belong to a woman of 30-35 years, i.e. she was born about
> > > 988. I think that marriage before the age of 13 is quite implausible
> > > (though not out of question), that's why Yaroslav was not married in
> > > 1001.
> >
> > And how circa 30-35 was suddenly turned into exactly 30 ? If she was 35
> > in 1018, then she was 18 in 1001, and so could be already married for
> > several years.
>
> I thought 30, because Yaroslav was born in 988, and his wife could not
> be elder than he.
Ok, now I understand. Yaroslav was born in 988 becase he was unmarried in
1001. And he was unmarried in 1001 because he was born in 988. Brilliant
logic.
> > > > > Mstislav was also elder than Yaroslav.
> > > >
> > > > And he said to Yaroslav: "You are the elder brother". Another falsification,
> > > > of course.
> > >
> > > Of course. Though we can make no solid conclusions by chronology in
> > > this case, it's quite suggestive that Mstislav predeceased Yaroslav by
> > > 18 years
> >
> > So the brother who died earlier is always the eldest ? And any evidence
> > for the contrary should be forged.
>
> I wrote 'we can make no solid conclusions' and 'suggestive' but you
> didn't read it.
>
> > > and he had an adult son who was elder than Yaroslav's
> > > children (died in 1032).
> >
> > An adult son ???
>
> IIRC you suggested that he was married to a sister of Canute, a woman
> who was about 30 in 1032.
I suggested either Eustaphy or Mstislav himself, exactly because we have
no idea about Eustaphy's age. He could be 30 years old, or 3 years old,
or whatever.
> > > Otherwise, why did he send murderers to a
> > > younger brother who couldn't be a potential claimant to the throne?
> >
> > What are you talking about ?
>
> Once again, read Nestor, it's useful (sometimes).
You aparently have your own edition of Nestor (probably an autographed copy
with a gift inscription from author himself). Neither of chronicles I saw
say a word about Yaroslav murdering any brother.
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> > "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3E6ED895...@interfold.com>...
> > > Andrew S. Kalinkin wrote:
> > > > "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3E697722...@interfold.com>...
> > > >
> > > >>Igor Sklar wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>It is stated there that Kasimir
> > > >>>married Maria (also known as Dobronega), the daughter of Russian
> > > >>>prince Roman. There was no Russian prince called Roman, but the father
> > > >>>of Anna was Romanos II. Perhaps Byzantines were called something like
> > > >>>'Romans' in Polish?
> > > >>
> > > >>I am always hesitant to take an obviously erroneous statement and
> > > >>try to 'fix it' by making it mean what we want it to mean.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure that this statement is "obviously erroneous". There was a
> > > > Roman in Rurikid family, and he is chronologically possible father for
> > > > Dobronega. It is "filiam Odone" bit that is hard to explain.
> > >
> > > OK, well I am hesitant to 'fix' a statement to make it mean what
> > > we want even if it is not obviously erroneous.
> > >
> > > Tell me more about this Roman.
> >
> > One of Vladimir's numerous sons had a Slavic name Boris and christian
> > name Roman.
>
> Not Slavic but Eastern.
Boris[lav] was definitely a slavic word. I think you are the first who
disagree with it.
> It was a dynastic name of Bulgarian khans.
There were only two Bulgarian rulers named Boris. This hardly makes it
a dynastic name. BTW, the first Boris abandoned the title of khan very
early in his reign, the second never used it at all.
> Boris' mother is said by Nestor to be a Bulgarian, named Adil.
Err.. did you ever read Nestor?
He say no such thing. Only two Vladimir's wives are named by him -
Rogneda and Anna. Everyone else are just "Bohemian", "Bulgarian",
etc. The mother of Boris and Gleb was "Bulgarian", but that's all.
The only "source" who provide names for all wives is Tatishchev,
but even he doesn't say this. He has "Bohemian" Adil (or something
similar) and "Bulgarian" Milolika. It is usually assumed that he made
up the whole thing (in particular "Milolika" is complete nonsense),
but someone (I don't remember who is the author of this hypothesis)
noted, that "Bulgarian" may be from Volga Bulgaria, not from Balkans,
as was usually thought, and that Adil is a valid Turkic name, so maybe
Tatishchev simply mixed up everything (always a possibility) and Adil
was the name of "Bulgarian".
> > He appears to be his father's favourite and designated
> > successor.
>
> In your imagination?
No. In sources.
> Vladimir's successors were either princes of
> Novgorod (Vysheslav, Yaroslav)
Vysheslav was long dead, and even when he was alive, no source calls him
Vladimir's heir (it is possible that he was, but there is no prove).
Yaroslav was so much the heir, that he rebelled against his father, and
Vladimir died during preparations to a punitive expedition against him.
> or (according to Titmar) Svyatopolk.
Svyatopolk (according to Thietmar) was thrown by Vladimir into prison, and
remained there until after Vladimir's death, when he escaped and fled to
Poland. Thietmar say that Vladimir was succeeded by his two other sons -
Yaroslav (actually he wasn't heir in the usual sense, but simply took his
part of inheritance without asking) and another, whose name Thietmar didn't
know. If you compare this information with Russian agyographic sources and
with Eymund saga, it becomes clear that this third brother was Boris.
> We should keep in mind that Russian sources are very partial to Boris,
> because he was (with his brother) the first Russian to be canonised.
This goes without saying. However Norse author of Eymund saga didn't care
about his sainthood, but show him as ruler of Kiev immediately after
Vladimir's death.
> It's remarkable that two lives of Boris and Gleb compiled in the 11th
> century do not specify the name of their mother. Either it was too
> well known (Anna), or they did not want to attract attention to their
> illegitimacy (Adil).
It is impossible to explain why lives of Boris of Gleb are silent about
their imperial ancestry if this was the case. Much could be made out of
connection between the mother, who brought christianity to Russia, and
her sons, the first martyrs. OTOH if there mother was one of Vladimir's
numerous pagan wives or concubines it was unnecessary to specify which
one. It was not relevant for agyographic purposes.
I am also far from sure that Boris and Gleb really had the same mother.
This bit could be simply invented when their united cult was formed.
Regards,
Andrew
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3E766DF5...@interfold.com>...
>
>>Igor Sklar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We know nothing of the kind. It's known that a Frankish prince, cousin
>>>of Bertha of Tuscany, married a Byzantine princess. Louis III was
>>>already an Emperor at that time, and you'll agree perhaps that
>>>'Emperor' is not quite the same as 'prince'.
>>>
>>>BTW, I have Bertha of Tuscany (born 930) as a great niece of Louis III
>>>(born ca 880), which is not exactly a cousinage if you know what I
>>>mean.
>>
>
> Perhaps my info is wrong. Bertha's (930-965) parents were Boson of
> Tuscany and Willa II of Burgundy. They were married in 912. Willa's
> parents were Rudolf I of Burgundy (+912) and Willa I of Burgundy
> (873-929). Willa I was the elder sister of Louis III. Hence, Bertha of
> Tuscany was a great niece of Louis III.
The identity of both Willa (II) and Willa (I) are questionable.
However, I don't think this is this the right Bertha - the
daughter of Boso married Boso, Count of Provence, then Raimond,
Count of Rouergue. I thought we were talking about her first
cousin, the daughter of King Hugh, who married Romanos. Hugh was
then son of Bertha, daughter of Lothair II, son of Lothair I,
while Louis was son of Ermengarde, son of Louis II, son of Lothair I.
> I would say that Bertha was a distant niece (anepsios) of Louis III
> rather than a cousin. Considering Byzantine level of genealogical
> culture, it seems highly unlikely that Greeks were aware of such
> complex relations among barbarian princes as described by you.
They wouldn't need to be. They would have been told as much by
the Franks, and the Franks were quite aware of the relationship,
which was the basis for Hugh succeeding to the Kingdom of Italy,
as representative of Lothair's line, and hence of Louis.
taf
Igor Sklar
You seem to have missed my recent post in this thread where I
demonstrated that Constantinos VII did not even know who Hugh's father
was. Meanwhile his son was married to the daughter of Hugh!
regards
Igor Sklar
Your vulgar explanation is an affront to any linguist. I'm not aware
of the name Borislav (if you don't mean the Polabian name Burislaw, of
course), and I'm not aware of such abbreviations as Yaroslav-Yaros,
Izyaslav-Izyas, Burislav-Buris... This is a complete nonsense.
> > It was a dynastic name of Bulgarian khans.
>
> There were only two Bulgarian rulers named Boris.
???
> This hardly makes it
> a dynastic name. BTW, the first Boris abandoned the title of khan very
> early in his reign, the second never used it at all.
Since you know so much about Bulgarian history, it won't be a
discovery for you that the original name of the 1st ruler was Bogoris
(see Constantinos VII for this), and he abbreviated it to Boris
following his conversion to Orthodoxy. This Boris for Bulgarians was
like St. Vladimir for Russians, so Boris has been the most popular
Bulgarian name for centuries to come. Bogoris is a typical Turkic
name, from 'bayoris' - '(God's) gift' (compare Slavic 'Bogdan').
> > Boris' mother is said by Nestor to be a Bulgarian, named Adil.
>
> Err.. did you ever read Nestor?
> He say no such thing. Only two Vladimir's wives are named by him -
> Rogneda and Anna. Everyone else are just "Bohemian", "Bulgarian",
> etc. The mother of Boris and Gleb was "Bulgarian", but that's all.
>
> The only "source" who provide names for all wives is Tatishchev,
> but even he doesn't say this. He has "Bohemian" Adil (or something
> similar) and "Bulgarian" Milolika. It is usually assumed that he made
> up the whole thing (in particular "Milolika" is complete nonsense),
> but someone (I don't remember who is the author of this hypothesis)
> noted, that "Bulgarian" may be from Volga Bulgaria, not from Balkans,
> as was usually thought, and that Adil is a valid Turkic name, so maybe
> Tatishchev simply mixed up everything (always a possibility) and Adil
> was the name of "Bulgarian".
Many thanks for explicating my message. Unfortunately, I have no time
to explain exact meaning of each trivial phrase in several passages,
like you do. I assume that facts sufficiently known or unimportant may
be mentioned without delivering a lecture on pre-history of the
subject.
> > Vladimir's successors were either princes of
> > Novgorod (Vysheslav, Yaroslav)
>
> Vysheslav was long dead, and even when he was alive, no source calls him
> Vladimir's heir (it is possible that he was, but there is no prove).
>
> Yaroslav was so much the heir, that he rebelled against his father, and
> Vladimir died during preparations to a punitive expedition against him.
>
> > or (according to Titmar) Svyatopolk.
>
> Svyatopolk (according to Thietmar) was thrown by Vladimir into prison, and
> remained there until after Vladimir's death, when he escaped and fled to
> Poland. Thietmar say that Vladimir was succeeded by his two other sons -
> Yaroslav (actually he wasn't heir in the usual sense, but simply took his
> part of inheritance without asking) and another, whose name Thietmar didn't
> know.
You say that Yaroslav was not an heir, but Titmar (died 1018) thought
another way. Whom should we believe, you or Titmar?
> > We should keep in mind that Russian sources are very partial to Boris,
> > because he was (with his brother) the first Russian to be canonised.
>
> This goes without saying. However Norse author of Eymund saga didn't care
> about his sainthood, but show him as ruler of Kiev immediately after
> Vladimir's death.
>
> > It's remarkable that two lives of Boris and Gleb compiled in the 11th
> > century do not specify the name of their mother. Either it was too
> > well known (Anna), or they did not want to attract attention to their
> > illegitimacy (Adil).
>
> It is impossible to explain why lives of Boris of Gleb are silent about
> their imperial ancestry if this was the case. Much could be made out of
> connection between the mother, who brought christianity to Russia, and
> her sons, the first martyrs. OTOH if there mother was one of Vladimir's
> numerous pagan wives or concubines it was unnecessary to specify which
> one. It was not relevant for agyographic purposes.
You are right there, it's more probable that both were illegitimate.
>
> I am also far from sure that Boris and Gleb really had the same mother.
> This bit could be simply invented when their united cult was formed.
If you had a smattering of onomastics, you would be more sure. Boris
and Gleb are typical Turkic names. Any attempts to establish
Scandinavian origin of 'Gleb' have been inconclusive so far. On the
other hand, attempts to identify it with names of Vulga Bulgarian
rulers mentioned in Arabian sources have met with notable success.
Regards, Igor
Igor Sklar
> > > > > skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > Nestor's chronology is not 'slightly incoherent.' It is severely
> > > > > > falsified.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any prove ?
> > > >
> > > > Just compare dates of Russian quests to Constantinople given by Nestor
> > > > and Byzantine authors.
> > >
> > > Which one? 941? 1043? And what is the point anyway?
Take 866 and 907, for example.
> > > > > > Speaking about Yaroslav's rule in Novgorod (1016), Nestor
> > > > > > gave himself away: he said that Yaroslav was 28.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course you know that it isn't that simple.
> > > >
> > > > No, I don't.
> > > >
> > > > > There are several
> > > > > different readings of this statement, and you choose one that
> > > > > suits you.
> > > >
> > > > When it's written 'Yaroslav was 28', I prefer to believe my eyes.
> > >
> > > Really? And where exactly you saw this statement?
> >
> > You should read Nestor sometime in future.
>
> This would be really great. Unfortunately I don't think I'll do it. There
> is such minor detail that his work didn't survive. Of course this won't
> stop you, but alas, everyone else can read only much later chronicles
> (Laurentian, Ipatievan, Radziwill etc.) that incorporate the text of
> Nestor's work, and even this not in original form, but from one of the
> two revisions compiled during Monomakh's reign.
Nestor is a short way to say 'The Russian Primary Chronicle'. I will
use another abbreviation in future, if this one annoys you. (Though
you've constantly used Nestor's name yourself).
> > > What about the word 'Novegorode'?
> >
> > The last letter added by scribes who could not understand Nestor's
> > meaning when he gives 3 different dates of Yaroslav's birth.
>
> How simple. The variant that you like is correct. The variant you don't
> like is in error by definition. Very convenient.
I've never encountered reading 18 or 38 years before. Now I look at
several editions of RPC, and cannot find these dates either. Perhaps
you invented them?
> > > With it this has totally different
> > > meaning - Yaroslav was in Novgorod for 28 years. Then it say nothing
> > > about his age at all.
> >
> > Hmm... And where was Vysheslav all this time? And who founded
> > Yaroslavl on the Volga in 1010? A prince of Novgorod?
>
> First, if we ignore any evidence that doesn't fit, as you do, we can easily
> make a scenario where this will be correct.
I never ignore reliable evidence and never twist established facts. I
ignore only unreliable testimonies and twist only conjectures of
modern people.
> In fact we will even need to
> twist much less facts than in your scenario, because we don't know neither
> date of Vysheslav's date...
Date with whom? :)
> ...nor exact foundation date of Yaroslavl.
Vysheslav was originally a prince of Novgorod, Yaroslav was a prince
of Rostov, and this is a fact. Nestor (or anyone else) had no reason
to falsify this. On the other hand, he was extremely interested in
distorting chronology of Yaroslav's life. He was interested in
presenting Yaroslav older than he actually had been, because purported
seniority of age (in Nestor's 12th-century view) established his
rights to the throne and justified his usurpation of power.
> > > And to make things worse, there are variants with the numbers 18 or 38,
> > > instead of 28.
> >
> > Never heard about it. Both *variants* of the generally accepted text
> > were added to explain Nestor's faulty chronology.
>
> I see that even if you never heard about something, it won't stop you from
> making a conclusion.
>
> BTW, what is "generally accepted text of Nestor" ?
I cited the phrase in question in one of my previous postings.
> > > > > But even if this was true, he won't be son of Anne anyway.
> > > >
> > > > I'd be grateful for any arguments to support this statement (if it's
> > > > not a pure demagogy of course).
> > >
> > > This is simple. To be born in 988, Yaroslav should be conceived in 987
> > > (or in the very first months of 988 at the latest).
> >
> > Yes. Anyway, 9 months more 9 months less...
> >
> > > Note also that the date of marriage between Vladimir and Anna is VERY
> > > far from certain. You take as granted that it happened in 988, while
> > > many historians, for the reasons that have nothing to do with Yaroslav's
> > > parentage, date it 989 or even 990. But moving it backward (to 987) is
> > > out of question.
> >
> > Yaroslav could not be born before 988, this is certain.
>
> Sure. Because you say so. I know, this is more than enough, but maybe
> there is some other reason for it ?
It seems like you didn't read my previous posts at all.
> > But 989 and 990 are also plausible dates.
>
> So 28 not necessary means 28. It may be 26, 25, whatever. The only
> condition is that it MUST fit into your pet theory.
>
> > > > > > Yaroslav was one of the youngest in family, and
> > > > > > this was the reason why he had Boris and Gleb to be killed, why he
> > > > > > imprisoned Sudislav until the rest of his days, why he had all his
> > > > > > rivals eliminated (except Mstislav).
> > > > >
> > > > > Most medieval princes would like to have their rivals eliminated, if
> > > > > they could. Such behavior is not specific for youngest sons.
> > > >
> > > > There were not so many rulers who eliminated all their brothers to
> > > > pave their way to the throne. You know that Vladimir and Yaroslav did
> > > > that, and for the same reason too: because they had no rights to
> > > > succession.
> > >
> > > To speak about 'rights' in 10-11th century context, as if there was
> > > some sort of established succession law, is absurd. In theory all
> > > king's (prince's, whatever) sons had equal rights.
> >
> > WHAT?? Why the eldest son of ruling prince always received Novgorod?
>
> Really? Svyatoslav first didn't want ot send anyone to Novgorod at all.
> When Novgorodians pressed the case, he send them the son about whom he
> cared very little. Vladimir first gave Novgorod to Vysheslav, his eldest
> son, but after his death - to Yaroslav, who certainly wasn't the eldest
> (and according to your fantasies was one of the youngest, but somehow you
> don't see the contradiction between your statements). You have a very
> strange definition of the word "always".
Yaroslav's rule in Novgorod is explicable by thousand reasons: he
could seize it after the death of Vysheslav without his father's
consent; he could be granted Novgorod at the expense of other brothers
because he was the only son of Vladimir from his 'lawful' marriage,
&c, &c.
> > What about the complex seniority of princely seats, their succession,
> > etc, etc.?
>
> When ? No such thing existed in 10th and early 11th century. That it
> developed at later date is irrelevant.
You said: "to speak about 'rights' in 10-11th century context, as if
there was some sort of established succession law, is absurd".
Actually the system we discuss had its golden age exactly in the 11th
century.
> > You should certainly read sources more often. And classical
> > historians too.
>
> You are realyy good in book recommendations. Did you try to to read
> something himself ? In this case I recommend to start with Presnyakov's
> "Princely law of Ancient Rus") ("Knyazhee pravo drevney Rusi").
Err... Don't you think the work is somewhat out-dated?
> > > In practice this
> > > depended of the number of followers he could gather and his luck in
> > > battle. His age, except extreme cases (if he happen to be a minor,
> > > for example) was irrelevant.
> >
> > Let me remind you in case you forgot. Ilya and Vladimir were elder
> > sons and heirs apparent (=rulers of Novgorod) but predeceased their
> > father. Yaroslav was succeeded first by Izyaslav, his eldest son, then
> > by Svyatoslav, his 2nd son, then by Vsevolod, the 3rd son... Vsevolod
> > was the favourite son of Yaroslav, but the latter could not make him
> > his heir at the expense of elder brothers.
>
> OK, let's remind something to you. Svyatoslav was succeded by his all
> three sons, who were totally independent in their domains and fought
> each other until Vladimir gained victory and got all. Vladimir again
> was "succeeded" by all his sons who were alive and had some reasonable
> force at their disposal (Boris, Svyatopolk, Yaroslav, Mstislav), and
> again they fough each other until Yaroslav eliminated and/or outlived
> all his rivals and emerged as sole ruler. Yaroslav was the first who
> tried to institute some order in this system. However contrary to what
> you say he wasn't succeeded by his eldest (surviving) son Izyaslav only.
> Instead Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod received each their own part
> of inheritance. Yaroslav tried (for the first time) to give Izyaslv some
> authority over his brothers (he was designated to be "in father's place"
> for them), but as you know, it didn't work, and when Izyaslav thought
> too much about his authority, he was kicked out.
You have some very unusual definition of the word 'succeed'. I imagine
that a successor to a grand duke of Kiev is a person who receives
Kiev. In my understanding Svyatoslav's successor was his eldest son
Yaropolk of Kiev, Vladimir's successor was his eldest son Svyatopolk
of Kiev, Yaroslav's successor was his eldest son Izyaslav of Kiev,
etc. But you know better. For you each of sovereign's sons who
receives something after his death is his successor.
You miss my point again. I think the story of Izyaslav's attempt on
Vladimir's life is a fable. I don't think that Rogneda's divorce and
her life with Izyaslav in Izyaslavl is a fable.
> > > > > > When Izyaslav died in
> > > > > > 1001, he left several heirs; Yaroslav had not been even married by
> > > > > > that time.
> > > > >
> > > > > And now you know the date of Yaroslav's marriage. Strange that everybody
> > > > > else is ignorant about it.
> > > >
> > > > If you're ignorant about it, it doesn't mean there is no room for a
> > > > reasonable conjecture. The 1st wife of Yaroslav (presumably named
> > > > Anna) died in 1018/19. (She is last mentioned by Titmar under
> > > > 14-August-1018, when she was imprisoned by Boleslaw; a year later
> > > > Yaroslav married Ingigerd.) The analysis of Anna's bones testified
> > > > that they belong to a woman of 30-35 years, i.e. she was born about
> > > > 988. I think that marriage before the age of 13 is quite implausible
> > > > (though not out of question), that's why Yaroslav was not married in
> > > > 1001.
> > >
> > > And how circa 30-35 was suddenly turned into exactly 30 ? If she was 35
> > > in 1018, then she was 18 in 1001, and so could be already married for
> > > several years.
> >
> > I thought 30, because Yaroslav was born in 988, and his wife could not
> > be elder than he.
>
> Ok, now I understand. Yaroslav was born in 988 becase he was unmarried in
> 1001.
When (and where) did I say this?
AFAIC your retorts have nothing to do with medieval genealogy. There
are other newsgroups where history of the period may be discussed.
Moreover, I'm getting tired of answering your inane and confused
postings. Next time I'd rather employ my time in a better way.
regards
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3E773726...@interfold.com>...
>
>>Igor Sklar wrote:
>
>>>I would say that Bertha was a distant niece (anepsios) of Louis III
>>>rather than a cousin. Considering Byzantine level of genealogical
>>>culture, it seems highly unlikely that Greeks were aware of such
>>>complex relations among barbarian princes as described by you.
>>
>>They wouldn't need to be. They would have been told as much by
>>the Franks, and the Franks were quite aware of the relationship,
>>which was the basis for Hugh succeeding to the Kingdom of Italy,
>>as representative of Lothair's line, and hence of Louis.
>
> demonstrated that Constantinos VII did not even know who Hugh's father
> was. Meanwhile his son was married to the daughter of Hugh!
Hugh's father was an insignificant person (relatively speaking).
The family notoriety was due to the mother, and specifically,
to her being related to the Kings of Italy (this relationship is
what enabled Hugh to successfully claim the crown). Thus, the
one kinship that would be most likely to filter through to
Constantinople was a kinship to Louis the Blind.
taf
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> > > > > kalinki...@mail.ru (Andrew S. Kalinkin) wrote in message news:<ebb42403.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > Nestor's chronology is not 'slightly incoherent.' It is severely
> > > > > > > falsified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any prove ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Just compare dates of Russian quests to Constantinople given by Nestor
> > > > > and Byzantine authors.
> > > >
> > > > Which one? 941? 1043? And what is the point anyway?
>
> Take 866 and 907, for example.
Still no prove that there are any 'falsifications' here.
> > > > > > > Speaking about Yaroslav's rule in Novgorod (1016), Nestor
> > > > > > > gave himself away: he said that Yaroslav was 28.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course you know that it isn't that simple.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I don't.
> > > > >
> > > > > > There are several
> > > > > > different readings of this statement, and you choose one that
> > > > > > suits you.
> > > > >
> > > > > When it's written 'Yaroslav was 28', I prefer to believe my eyes.
> > > >
> > > > Really? And where exactly you saw this statement?
> > >
> > > You should read Nestor sometime in future.
> >
> > This would be really great. Unfortunately I don't think I'll do it. There
> > is such minor detail that his work didn't survive. Of course this won't
> > stop you, but alas, everyone else can read only much later chronicles
> > (Laurentian, Ipatievan, Radziwill etc.) that incorporate the text of
> > Nestor's work, and even this not in original form, but from one of the
> > two revisions compiled during Monomakh's reign.
>
> Nestor is a short way to say 'The Russian Primary Chronicle'. I will
> use another abbreviation in future, if this one annoys you. (Though
> you've constantly used Nestor's name yourself).
It is completely pointless to explain anything to you, but I'll do it
anyway. We don't have the text of Nestor (or of Russian Primary Chronicle,
of of Tale of Bygone Years, or of whatever name you choose to use). What
we actually have are several manuscripts of later chronicles based on
Nestor's work in their early parts. The 'generally accepted' text of Nestor
is reconstructed from them. When our sources are in agreement then it is OK
to refer just to 'Nestor' and omit unnecessary details. But when we have a
corrupted phrase that reads differently in different manuscripts, and we
discuss specifically which reading should be preferred and for what reason,
then refer to 'Nestor' (or whatever other name) in general, as if it existed
by itself, is completely meaningless.
> > > > What about the word 'Novegorode'?
> > >
> > > The last letter added by scribes who could not understand Nestor's
> > > meaning when he gives 3 different dates of Yaroslav's birth.
> >
> > How simple. The variant that you like is correct. The variant you don't
> > like is in error by definition. Very convenient.
>
> I've never encountered reading 18 or 38 years before. Now I look at
> several editions of RPC, and cannot find these dates either. Perhaps
> you invented them?
It doesn't seem that you read even one. If you are really interested, look
at least in the first two volumes of PSRL.
> > > > > > But even if this was true, he won't be son of Anne anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd be grateful for any arguments to support this statement (if it's
> > > > > not a pure demagogy of course).
> > > >
> > > > This is simple. To be born in 988, Yaroslav should be conceived in 987
> > > > (or in the very first months of 988 at the latest).
> > >
> > > Yes. Anyway, 9 months more 9 months less...
> > >
> > > > Note also that the date of marriage between Vladimir and Anna is VERY
> > > > far from certain. You take as granted that it happened in 988, while
> > > > many historians, for the reasons that have nothing to do with Yaroslav's
> > > > parentage, date it 989 or even 990. But moving it backward (to 987) is
> > > > out of question.
> > >
> > > Yaroslav could not be born before 988, this is certain.
> >
> > Sure. Because you say so. I know, this is more than enough, but maybe
> > there is some other reason for it ?
>
> It seems like you didn't read my previous posts at all.
You assert this instantly, but never present a single piece of evidence.
Any more fantasies ?
Anyway, the actual "rule" seems to be: The eldest son always received
Novgorod, except the cases when he didn't.
> > > What about the complex seniority of princely seats, their succession,
> > > etc, etc.?
> >
> > When ? No such thing existed in 10th and early 11th century. That it
> > developed at later date is irrelevant.
>
> You said: "to speak about 'rights' in 10-11th century context, as if
> there was some sort of established succession law, is absurd".
> Actually the system we discuss had its golden age exactly in the 11th
> century.
This system had its 'golden age' in the heads of late medieval and early
modern commentators, where it achieved much more finished and orderly
form than in real life. In modern science it was largerly deconstructed.
But anyway this idea is based on realities that first emerge in late
11th century. No evidence that anything like this existed at the times of
Vladimir and Yaroslav.
> > > You should certainly read sources more often. And classical
> > > historians too.
> >
> > You are realyy good in book recommendations. Did you try to to read
> > something himself ? In this case I recommend to start with Presnyakov's
> > "Princely law of Ancient Rus") ("Knyazhee pravo drevney Rusi").
>
> Err... Don't you think the work is somewhat out-dated?
Don't worry about it. It is about 100 years ahead of your current level
of knowledge.
This is the same tale, not two different stories. You can't arbitrarily
pick some details from the fable and claim that they must be genuine.
> > > > > > > When Izyaslav died in
> > > > > > > 1001, he left several heirs; Yaroslav had not been even married by
> > > > > > > that time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And now you know the date of Yaroslav's marriage. Strange that everybody
> > > > > > else is ignorant about it.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you're ignorant about it, it doesn't mean there is no room for a
> > > > > reasonable conjecture. The 1st wife of Yaroslav (presumably named
> > > > > Anna) died in 1018/19. (She is last mentioned by Titmar under
> > > > > 14-August-1018, when she was imprisoned by Boleslaw; a year later
> > > > > Yaroslav married Ingigerd.) The analysis of Anna's bones testified
> > > > > that they belong to a woman of 30-35 years, i.e. she was born about
> > > > > 988. I think that marriage before the age of 13 is quite implausible
> > > > > (though not out of question), that's why Yaroslav was not married in
> > > > > 1001.
> > > >
> > > > And how circa 30-35 was suddenly turned into exactly 30 ? If she was 35
> > > > in 1018, then she was 18 in 1001, and so could be already married for
> > > > several years.
> > >
> > > I thought 30, because Yaroslav was born in 988, and his wife could not
> > > be elder than he.
> >
> > Ok, now I understand. Yaroslav was born in 988 becase he was unmarried in
> > 1001.
>
> When (and where) did I say this?
Read above. You stated that Yaroslav was unmarried when Izyaslav died as one
of arguments for his late birthdate. This is the only reason why this subject
was raised in the first place.
> > And he was unmarried in 1001 because he was born in 988. Brilliant
> > logic.
> >
> Moreover, I'm getting tired of answering your inane and confused
> postings. Next time I'd rather employ my time in a better way.
It's OK. Your posts were amusing for some time, but now they become more
and more boring. Good bye.
Regards,
Andrew
Andrew S. Kalinkin
> > disagree with it.
>
> Your vulgar explanation is an affront to any linguist. I'm not aware
> of the name Borislav (if you don't mean the Polabian name Burislaw, of
> course), and I'm not aware of such abbreviations as Yaroslav-Yaros,
> Izyaslav-Izyas, Burislav-Buris... This is a complete nonsense.
If you are not aware about something this doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
One Piotr Borislavich was a high profile figure, Rybakov (or are you unaware
of this name also?) wrote quite a few about him. BTW his name is recorded both
as Piotr Borisovich and Piotr Borislavich in the same passage of Ipatievan
chronicle. This makes clear to everyone but you that these forms were regarded
as interchangeable.
> > > It was a dynastic name of Bulgarian khans.
> >
> > There were only two Bulgarian rulers named Boris.
>
> ???
Very meaningful comment.
> > This hardly makes it
> > a dynastic name. BTW, the first Boris abandoned the title of khan very
> > early in his reign, the second never used it at all.
>
> Since you know so much about Bulgarian history, it won't be a
> discovery for you that the original name of the 1st ruler was Bogoris
> (see Constantinos VII for this), and he abbreviated it to Boris
> following his conversion to Orthodoxy. This Boris for Bulgarians was
> like St. Vladimir for Russians, so Boris has been the most popular
> Bulgarian name for centuries to come.
Nothing in this rant contradicts what I wrote. The name Boris was probably
popular among Bulgarians, but still only one Bulgarian tsar had it after
the original Boris (OK, two if you count also Boris of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
in 20th century).
> > > Boris' mother is said by Nestor to be a Bulgarian, named Adil.
> >
> > Err.. did you ever read Nestor?
> > He say no such thing. Only two Vladimir's wives are named by him -
> > Rogneda and Anna. Everyone else are just "Bohemian", "Bulgarian",
> > etc. The mother of Boris and Gleb was "Bulgarian", but that's all.
> >
> > The only "source" who provide names for all wives is Tatishchev,
> > but even he doesn't say this. He has "Bohemian" Adil (or something
> > similar) and "Bulgarian" Milolika. It is usually assumed that he made
> > up the whole thing (in particular "Milolika" is complete nonsense),
> > but someone (I don't remember who is the author of this hypothesis)
> > noted, that "Bulgarian" may be from Volga Bulgaria, not from Balkans,
> > as was usually thought, and that Adil is a valid Turkic name, so maybe
> > Tatishchev simply mixed up everything (always a possibility) and Adil
> > was the name of "Bulgarian".
>
> Many thanks for explicating my message. Unfortunately, I have no time
> to explain exact meaning of each trivial phrase in several passages,
> like you do. I assume that facts sufficiently known or unimportant may
> be mentioned without delivering a lecture on pre-history of the
> subject.
Thanks for the confirmation. So you never read it. Your comment was not
'trivial', it was wrong, pure and simple. If you are so annoyed by this,
next time I'll simply say 'You are wrong' and spare the lecture.
> > > Vladimir's successors were either princes of
> > > Novgorod (Vysheslav, Yaroslav)
> >
> > Vysheslav was long dead, and even when he was alive, no source calls him
> > Vladimir's heir (it is possible that he was, but there is no prove).
> >
> > Yaroslav was so much the heir, that he rebelled against his father, and
> > Vladimir died during preparations to a punitive expedition against him.
> >
> > > or (according to Titmar) Svyatopolk.
> >
> > Svyatopolk (according to Thietmar) was thrown by Vladimir into prison, and
> > remained there until after Vladimir's death, when he escaped and fled to
> > Poland. Thietmar say that Vladimir was succeeded by his two other sons -
> > Yaroslav (actually he wasn't heir in the usual sense, but simply took his
> > part of inheritance without asking) and another, whose name Thietmar didn't
> > know.
>
> You say that Yaroslav was not an heir, but Titmar (died 1018) thought
> another way. Whom should we believe, you or Titmar?
You have no idea what Thietmar said, because you never read it.
Regards,
Andrew
Igor Sklar
I've looked through a passage of Constantinos once again and couldn't
find any indication of this. Two points are conspicuous, however:
1. The Emperor mentions his purported brother-in-law in a single
phrase and proceeds to recount the story of king Berengar and his
relatives. There is either complete lack of interest towards his
hypothetical brother-in-law or (and this is more probable) absence of
any information about this person except the fact he was blinded.
2. The Emperor also mentions his sister here. He seemed quite anxious
to demonstrate that marriage with a Frank doesn't mean denigration for
imperial family. You expect that he alludes to Makedonioi's previous
marriage with barbarian Europe? Not at all. We learn that Berthe, the
daughter-in-law of author, received in Byzantium the new name of
Eudoxia to honour 'both Constantinos' grandmother and sister'. Why not
Anna? Why another sister who died at the age of 4 or so was honoured?
All this is a mystery to me.
And of course we have some right to expect that Constantinos (who is
thought to have learnt all this info from his daughter-in-law) would
elucidate a connection between his brother-in-law and his
daughter-in-law? No, no, no. The Emperor is entirely forgetful that he
ever had a brother-in-law in Europe or that his sister (the 1st such
event in the Byzantine history!) ever lived in Europe. This argumentum
ex silencio from a person who tells a story of his relatives in Europe
seems to be stronger than a passing mention of the marriage (or
betrothal?) in a letter of patriarch.
Regards, Igor
Todd A. Farmerie
> I've looked through a passage of Constantinos once again and couldn't
> find any indication of this. Two points are conspicuous, however:
>
> 1. The Emperor mentions his purported brother-in-law in a single
> phrase and proceeds to recount the story of king Berengar and his
> relatives. There is either complete lack of interest towards his
> hypothetical brother-in-law or (and this is more probable) absence of
> any information about this person except the fact he was blinded.
That _really_ narrows things. The number of kinsmen of Bertha
who were blinded is not large at all. (By the way, it has been
speculated that after the death of Louis, and near the time of
his own death, Anna remarried to Berenger.
> And of course we have some right to expect that Constantinos (who is
> thought to have learnt all this info from his daughter-in-law) would
> elucidate a connection between his brother-in-law and his
> daughter-in-law? No, no, no. The Emperor is entirely forgetful that he
> ever had a brother-in-law in Europe or that his sister (the 1st such
> event in the Byzantine history!) ever lived in Europe. This argumentum
> ex silencio from a person who tells a story of his relatives in Europe
> seems to be stronger than a passing mention of the marriage (or
> betrothal?) in a letter of patriarch.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that hte marriage
never took place?
taf