Arnulfing to Dagsburg?

[mike davis]

1. Arnulfing Descent

Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that
is Bruno of Eguisheim later Pope Leo IX, which he doesnt himself claim I thought I would look at the descent he does claim. According to french wiki there is a papal bull of Leo iX, where he claims to be a descendant of Arnulf via Drogo of Champagne [d708] and names all 4 of his sons. Again the ref for this Settipani's capetian book, p162, but as Fraser has pointed out these refs can be misleading and I wouldnt want to attribute something to mr settipani which is actually an internet fantasy. I havnt seen this book or the bull but AIUI, 3 brothers Pepin, Godfrid and Arnulf conspired [723] with the Neustrians to rebel against their uncle Charles Martel, this failed and 2 were
imprisoned and one died. I believe Settipani has constructed a line of descent from Godfrid, but it seems unlikely to me that Charles Martel, a man not known for being merciful to opponents, would have allowed children of his half brother free again to have descendants who might again threaten his own family, although some historians believe he did spare his other nephew Theodebald, Plectrudes grandson.

I dont know if its settipani or someone else who bases this on a much later XIe legend of Godfrid of Flandelum and his wife Pomponia found in another text called the genealogy of St.Aredius. Not having seen Settipanis book only what french websites show in lines of descent, it seems Godfrid's sons establish a new family line in Aquitaine first at Bourges in the 8th and later also in Cahors in the 9th. In this version Godfrid had 2 sons Chunibert of Bourges 761-78 and Ct Drogo 753-62. I think this might be in his later
work on Nevers 2000 or la midi noblesse 2004. This Chunibert is seen as the same man as Humbert appointed count of Bourges 778 by Charlemagne but without any mention of kinship, and although there was a Drogo 753-62 under Pippin III, I dont know if there is any mention of kinship. He is not the same as the Drogo son of Pippin IIIs brother Carloman, who succeeded his father for a while in Austrasia and resisted Pippin 751/3 until he was
captured and tonsured.

There may be an alternative view to this descent as on some french sites this line runs through male line of Humbert, on others it runs through a grandaughter of Drogo called Aiga to the counts of Cahors. However I'm unclear how this all connects to Bruno of Eguisheim or Hugo of Chaumontois.

2. Dagsburg Origin

My 2nd query concerns Bruno's maternal ancestors. AFAIK nothing is known about his mother Heilwig of Dasburg from medieval sources, except she was a latin [romance speaker] but could also speak teuton the language of her husband Hugo of Eguisheim who inherited Dagsburg through her. However in the 17th century, a historian at Moyenmoutier Jean de Bayon said he had found an entry in its archives which named Louis count of Dasburg _avus_ of St.Bruno who he perceived to be Heilwigs father. He went on to exult the virtues of Bruno's mother Heilwig, who he said retired to Moyenmoutier and lived there for the last 30 years of her life. In the 18th another historian Schoepflin says he also found a reference to a Louis Otto of Dasburg _avus_ of Pope Leo who in 966 founded the priory of St.Quirinus in the Vosges. This evidence was rejected by both Hlawitschka and Legl, but Charles Munier in his article _À propos du millénaire de la naissance du pape Léon IX (1002-1054)_ uses it as the starting point of his research into Brunos maternal descent.

Munier identifies this Louis of Dasburg with a story about a Louis 'Count of the alemans' he found in the chronicle of St.Pierre le Vif de Sens 1016/25, who as he was returning from a pilgrimage to Mont st.Michel, fell ill and died at Sens, and gave [V]ariscourt to the monks. He says this is the same man, because Jean de Bayon also called him Louis comte aleman! I havnt seen this source so I dont know what to make of this, but there do seem a few other obscure Count Louis floating around at this time such as Louis I of Chiny, Louis de Mousson. He goes to to attach Louis of Dasburg to the family of Rainald/Ragenold or Renaud de Roucy, whose origins are a problem in itself and suggest this family was favoured by Bruno of Koln and the Ottonians as they were descended from Gerberga sister of Otto the Great and her husband Giselbert of Lorraine/Lotharingia through their daughter Alberada. He names the siblings of Louis of Dagsberg as Giselbert de Roucy, Renaud who became count of Hainault when Bruno of Koln divided Lotharingia c959 and was killed at peronne 973, Bruno bishop of Langres, Otto father of Louis of Chiny, Hedwig who married Sigfrid of Luxemburg and Gerberga the wife of Fromond of Sens, 5 of whom he notes took their names from their maternal relatives.

There are obviously problems with this not least that Bruno of Langres says in 991 at Verzy synod that he had only one brother, so Louis of Dagsburg would have had to have died by then. Also AIUI the original Renaud de Roucy whoever he was, in fact was a strong ally of Louis IV of France in the 940s, so the family must have changed sides abruptly when the king suddenly died leaving a boy of 13. The original Renaud de Roucy is usually marked as dying in 967, but Munier quotes St.Pierre le Vif again to the contrary to suggest there were 2 separate Renauds. This chronicle says a famine occured which Munier says is the one mentioned in 942 by Flodard, and the Sens account
says 3 yrs after this the city was surrendered to Renaud count of Reims [945] but Fromond attacked and broke into the castel of st colombe and Renaud was killed in the rout 27 august.

AIUI Renaud was not really count of Reims but later built a castle at Roucy nearby sometime later, and this account or Muniers interpretation is different to what I see elsewhere, so I wonder if he has made a mistake with the date of this event or if its a different Renaud.

Sorry for this long post, but as they are connected I thought it better
to post these two queries together.

Mike

[mike davis]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 6:14:29 PM UTC, mike davis wrote:
> 1. Arnulfing Descent
>
> Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that

sorry for the spacing and long lines, either my editor had a glitch
or posting to sgm mangeled it!

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:
> 1. Arnulfing Descent
>
> Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that
> is Bruno of Eguisheim later Pope Leo IX, which he doesnt himself claim I thought I would look at the descent he does claim.

The rest of your post will keep for late, but on this point I don't
think anything can be safely concluded from a pope not boasting of
descent from either Adalric/Eticho of Alsace or Eberhard of Lure. The
former was a cruel bully who had wanted to kill his saintly daughter
because she dishonoured him by being born blind, and the latter was a
menace to the church in his hereditary stomping ground. I doubt that Leo
would have wanted attention drawn to such unbefitting forefathers.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:

> 1. Arnulfing Descent
>
> Having discussed the possible etichonid descent of Bruno of Toul, that
> is Bruno of Eguisheim later Pope Leo IX, which he doesnt himself claim I thought I would look at the descent he does claim. According to french wiki there is a papal bull of Leo iX, where he claims to be a descendant of Arnulf via Drogo of Champagne [d708] and names all 4 of his sons. Again the ref for this Settipani's capetian book, p162, but as Fraser has pointed out these refs can be misleading and I wouldnt want to attribute something to mr settipani which is actually an internet fantasy.

I haven't had time to look further yet, but unfortunately this is indeed
in Christian Settipani's book as cited - and it is worthless. I hope he
will have thought better about it before he publishes the next volume of
/La préhistoire des Capétiens/.

There is no such bull of Leo IX - the text is a 12th-century forgery
inserted in the later 'Historia sancti Arnulfi Mettenis'. In this case
the purported papal bull was probably forged in Trier ca 1120 and may
represent a preliminary stage in an attempt to assert rights to dubious
possessions of Saint-Arnoul abbey by connecting these with the former
pope. The author evidently knew of Leo IX's relationship with the
Etichonids and he used both genuine and forged Carolingian royal
documents in his fabrication, intending to prove that the abbey was a
royal foundation and that the bishop of Metz had no rights to its property.

Any genealogical speculation based on this is a waste of effort.
Compounding the problem, Settipani also referred credulously to the
earlier Saint-Arnoul forgeries speciously linking Hugo of Chaumontois to
the Arnulfians as part of his evidence for conjecturing a line descended
from Drogo of Champagne.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:
> 1. Arnulfing Descent

<snip>

> I dont know if its settipani or someone else who bases this on a much later XIe legend of Godfrid of Flandelum and his wife Pomponia found in another text called the genealogy of St.Aredius. Not having seen Settipanis book only what french websites show in lines of descent, it seems Godfrid's sons establish a new family line in Aquitaine first at Bourges in the 8th and later also in Cahors in the 9th. In this version Godfrid had 2 sons Chunibert of Bourges 761-78 and Ct Drogo 753-62. I think this might be in his later
> work on Nevers 2000 or la midi noblesse 2004.

In /Nobless du Midi carolingien/ on p. 225 Settipani gave a table (with
more dotted and broken lines than I have the puff to read through his
arguments for) showing Pomponia and Godfrid as putative parents of count
Chunibert of Bourges, and the latter with a sister of bishop Aredius as
parents of bishop Ebroin and Adaltrude, wife of Gauzlin and ancestress
by him of the Rorgonid counts of Le Mans and consequently of many SGM
participants.

Perhaps someone with more taste than I have for heavily-spiced tripe can
digest this stew of "possibilities". The genealogy of Aredius, a point
of departure for the prolix speculation, was compiled ca 850 and can be
found here:
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_rer_merov_3/index.htm#page/611/mode/1up.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

> 2. Dagsburg Origin
>
> My 2nd query concerns Bruno's maternal ancestors. AFAIK nothing is known about his mother Heilwig of Dasburg from medieval sources, except she was a latin [romance speaker] but could also speak teuton the language of her husband Hugo of Eguisheim who inherited Dagsburg through her. However in the 17th century, a historian at Moyenmoutier Jean de Bayon said he had found an entry in its archives which named Louis count of Dasburg _avus_ of St.Bruno who he perceived to be Heilwigs father. He went on to exult the virtues of Bruno's mother Heilwig, who he said retired to Moyenmoutier and lived there for the last 30 years of her life. In the 18th another historian Schoepflin says he also found a reference to a Louis Otto of Dasburg _avus_ of Pope Leo who in 966 founded the priory of St.Quirinus in the Vosges. This evidence was rejected by both Hlawitschka and Legl, but Charles Munier in his article _À propos du millénaire de la naissance du pape Léon IX (1002-1054)_ uses it as the starting point of his research into Brunos maternal descent.
>
> Munier identifies this Louis of Dasburg with a story about a Louis 'Count of the alemans' he found in the chronicle of St.Pierre le Vif de Sens 1016/25, who as he was returning from a pilgrimage to Mont st.Michel, fell ill and died at Sens, and gave [V]ariscourt to the monks. He says this is the same man, because Jean de Bayon also called him Louis comte aleman! I havnt seen this source so I dont know what to make of this, but there do seem a few other obscure Count Louis floating around at this time such as Louis I of Chiny, Louis de Mousson. He goes to to attach Louis of Dasburg to the family of Rainald/Ragenold or Renaud de Roucy, whose origins are a problem in itself and suggest this family was favoured by Bruno of Koln and the Ottonians as they were descended from Gerberga sister of Otto the Great and her husband Giselbert of Lorraine/Lotharingia through their daughter Alberada. He names the siblings of Louis of Dagsberg as Giselbert de Roucy, Renaud who became count of Hainault when Bruno of Koln divided Lotharingia c959 and was killed at peronne 973, Bruno bishop of Langres, Otto father of Louis of Chiny, Hedwig who married Sigfrid of Luxemburg and Gerberga the wife of Fromond of Sens, 5 of whom he notes took their names from their maternal relatives.
>
> There are obviously problems with this not least that Bruno of Langres says in 991 at Verzy synod that he had only one brother, so Louis of Dagsburg would have had to have died by then. Also AIUI the original Renaud de Roucy whoever he was, in fact was a strong ally of Louis IV of France in the 940s, so the family must have changed sides abruptly when the king suddenly died leaving a boy of 13. The original Renaud de Roucy is usually marked as dying in 967, but Munier quotes St.Pierre le Vif again to the contrary to suggest there were 2 separate Renauds. This chronicle says a famine occured which Munier says is the one mentioned in 942 by Flodard, and the Sens account
> says 3 yrs after this the city was surrendered to Renaud count of Reims [945] but Fromond attacked and broke into the castel of st colombe and Renaud was killed in the rout 27 august.
>
> AIUI Renaud was not really count of Reims but later built a castle at Roucy nearby sometime later, and this account or Muniers interpretation is different to what I see elsewhere, so I wonder if he has made a mistake with the date of this event or if its a different Renaud.

Renaud (or Ragenoldus) was repeatedly called count by Flodoard and he
was excommunicated by an archbishop of Reims for hanging on to property
belonging to the cathedral, so his power evidently covered that area and
some historians conclude that he was count of Reims.

As for the Louis "comes Alemannorum" who died as a monk at
Saint-Pierre-le-Vif in Sens, probably ca 1023, he was not a brother but
a first cousin of bishop Bruno of Langres, a son of the latter's
maternal uncle Charles of Laon, duke of lower Lorraine. The notion that
Louis of Dagsbourg was this man, a Carolingian, is far-fetched to say
the least. Munier returned to this hobby-horse subject seven years after
the article you mention, in 'A propos de Louis de Dabo, comes
Alemanorum, aieul du Pape Léon IX', /Revue de droit canonique/ 57 (2009)
- but the case didn't get any stronger in the interval. The epitaph of
Louis who died in Sens described him as "regali de stirpe", of the royal
bloodline, i.e. as a grandson of king Louis IV rather than of his wife,
Bruno's grandmother Gerberga: this is not a description that would be
applied at Sens to someone whose nearest royal ancestor was Henry the
Fowler, father of a maternal grandmother.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-21 6:18 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> The epitaph of
> Louis who died in Sens described him as "regali de stirpe", of the royal
> bloodline, i.e. as a grandson of king Louis IV rather than of his wife,
> Bruno's grandmother Gerberga

This is not clear, as Gerberga was grandmother of Louis as well - I
meant: "i.e. as a grandson of king Louis IV rather than of his wife,
Bruno's grandmother Gerberga, by her prior marriage to Gislebert of
Lorraine.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Thanks for this, Peter. Those conjectures are laid out at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godefried. I had previously asked about this at https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/OQXiq6cmwI8/m/db4ue0FVBAAJ

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Did you remember the discussion?

[mike davis]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 7:18:13 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:
> <snip>
> > 2. Dagsburg Origin
> >
> > My 2nd query concerns Bruno's maternal ancestors. AFAIK nothing is known about his mother Heilwig of Dasburg from medieval sources, except she was a latin [romance speaker] but could also speak teuton the language of her husband Hugo of Eguisheim who inherited Dagsburg through her. However in the 17th century, a historian at Moyenmoutier Jean de Bayon said he had found an entry in its archives which named Louis count of Dasburg _avus_ of St.Bruno who he perceived to be Heilwigs father. He went on to exult the virtues of Bruno's mother Heilwig, who he said retired to Moyenmoutier and lived there for the last 30 years of her life. In the 18th another historian Schoepflin says he also found a reference to a Louis Otto of Dasburg _avus_ of Pope Leo who in 966 founded the priory of St.Quirinus in the Vosges. This evidence was rejected by both Hlawitschka and Legl, but Charles Munier in his article _À propos du millénaire de la naissance du pape Léon IX (1002-1054)_ uses it as the starting point of his research into Brunos maternal descent.

Apparently jean de Bayon was a 14th century historian, my mistake.

> >
> > Munier identifies this Louis of Dasburg with a story about a Louis 'Count of the alemans' he found in the chronicle of St.Pierre le Vif de Sens 1016/25, who as he was returning from a pilgrimage to Mont st.Michel, fell ill and died at Sens, and gave [V]ariscourt to the monks. He says this is the same man, because Jean de Bayon also called him Louis comte aleman! I havnt seen this source so I dont know what to make of this, but there do seem a few other obscure Count Louis floating around at this time such as Louis I of Chiny, Louis de Mousson. He goes to to attach Louis of Dasburg to the family of Rainald/Ragenold or Renaud de Roucy, whose origins are a problem in itself and suggest this family was favoured by Bruno of Koln and the Ottonians as they were descended from Gerberga sister of Otto the Great and her husband Giselbert of Lorraine/Lotharingia through their daughter Alberada. He names the siblings of Louis of Dagsberg as Giselbert de Roucy, Renaud who became count of Hainault when Bruno of Koln divided Lotharingia c959 and was killed at peronne 973, Bruno bishop of Langres, Otto father of Louis of Chiny, Hedwig who married Sigfrid of Luxemburg and Gerberga the wife of Fromond of Sens, 5 of whom he notes took their names from their maternal relatives.
> >
> > There are obviously problems with this not least that Bruno of Langres says in 991 at Verzy synod that he had only one brother, so Louis of Dagsburg would have had to have died by then. Also AIUI the original Renaud de Roucy whoever he was, in fact was a strong ally of Louis IV of France in the 940s, so the family must have changed sides abruptly when the king suddenly died leaving a boy of 13. The original Renaud de Roucy is usually marked as dying in 967, but Munier quotes St.Pierre le Vif again to the contrary to suggest there were 2 separate Renauds. This chronicle says a famine occured which Munier says is the one mentioned in 942 by Flodard, and the Sens account
> > says 3 yrs after this the city was surrendered to Renaud count of Reims [945] but Fromond attacked and broke into the castel of st colombe and Renaud was killed in the rout 27 august.
> >
> > AIUI Renaud was not really count of Reims but later built a castle at Roucy nearby sometime later, and this account or Muniers interpretation is different to what I see elsewhere, so I wonder if he has made a mistake with the date of this event or if its a different Renaud.
> Renaud (or Ragenoldus) was repeatedly called count by Flodoard and he
> was excommunicated by an archbishop of Reims for hanging on to property
> belonging to the cathedral, so his power evidently covered that area and
> some historians conclude that he was count of Reims.

Not having access to this chronicle I dont know if Munier was correct
in his dating of the events to 945. If this Renaud died 27/8/945 as he claims,
it must be a different Renaud who built Roucy c948 and died 967, although
it seems that Flodoard is refering to just 1 man not 2 under Louis IV.

>
> As for the Louis "comes Alemannorum" who died as a monk at
> Saint-Pierre-le-Vif in Sens, probably ca 1023, he was not a brother but
> a first cousin of bishop Bruno of Langres, a son of the latter's
> maternal uncle Charles of Laon, duke of lower Lorraine. The notion that
> Louis of Dagsbourg was this man, a Carolingian, is far-fetched to say
> the least. Munier returned to this hobby-horse subject seven years after
> the article you mention, in 'A propos de Louis de Dabo, comes
> Alemanorum, aieul du Pape Léon IX', /Revue de droit canonique/ 57 (2009)
> - but the case didn't get any stronger in the interval. The epitaph of
> Louis who died in Sens described him as "regali de stirpe", of the royal
> bloodline, i.e. as a grandson of king Louis IV rather than of his wife,
> Bruno's grandmother Gerberga: this is not a description that would be
> applied at Sens to someone whose nearest royal ancestor was Henry the
> Fowler, father of a maternal grandmother.

So Louis of Dasburg wasnt the same man as mentioned in the Sens account,
but can the Moyenmoutier evidence be used to establish a maternal ancestry?
AIUI the records of Moyenmoutier were all burnt at the revolution, so these claims
cant be checked.

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

No, Paulo - on a good day I have the memory capacity of a goldfish, and
even then past SGM discussions are a blank. Frequently in the time it
takes for a slowish lift mechanism to get me to my feet I've forgotten
why I wanted to get up in the first place.

This wikipedia page reflects a lapse in scholarship that I trust
Christian Settipani will correct - though it may be too late to get this
misguided conjecture out of circulation now. The obvious place to check
for the authenticity of a papal bull and for references to follow about
the question is *Regesta Imperii*, where the problem with this forged
document of Leo IX is set out (as summarised in my post above) by Karl
Augustin Frech in *Papstregesten 1024-1058* part 2 (2011) pp. 236-237
no. †650.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 02-Dec-21 5:05 AM, mike davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 7:18:13 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On 01-Dec-21 5:14 AM, mike davis wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> 2. Dagsburg Origin
>>>
>>> My 2nd query concerns Bruno's maternal ancestors. AFAIK nothing is known about his mother Heilwig of Dasburg from medieval sources, except she was a latin [romance speaker] but could also speak teuton the language of her husband Hugo of Eguisheim who inherited Dagsburg through her. However in the 17th century, a historian at Moyenmoutier Jean de Bayon said he had found an entry in its archives which named Louis count of Dasburg _avus_ of St.Bruno who he perceived to be Heilwigs father. He went on to exult the virtues of Bruno's mother Heilwig, who he said retired to Moyenmoutier and lived there for the last 30 years of her life. In the 18th another historian Schoepflin says he also found a reference to a Louis Otto of Dasburg _avus_ of Pope Leo who in 966 founded the priory of St.Quirinus in the Vosges. This evidence was rejected by both Hlawitschka and Legl, but Charles Munier in his article _À propos du millénaire de la naissance du pape Léon IX (1002-1054)_ uses it as the starting point of his research into Brunos maternal descent.
>
> Apparently jean de Bayon was a 14th century historian, my mistake.

Early-14th - his chronicle was written in 1326.

>>>
>>> Munier identifies this Louis of Dasburg with a story about a Louis 'Count of the alemans' he found in the chronicle of St.Pierre le Vif de Sens 1016/25, who as he was returning from a pilgrimage to Mont st.Michel, fell ill and died at Sens, and gave [V]ariscourt to the monks. He says this is the same man, because Jean de Bayon also called him Louis comte aleman! I havnt seen this source so I dont know what to make of this, but there do seem a few other obscure Count Louis floating around at this time such as Louis I of Chiny, Louis de Mousson. He goes to to attach Louis of Dasburg to the family of Rainald/Ragenold or Renaud de Roucy, whose origins are a problem in itself and suggest this family was favoured by Bruno of Koln and the Ottonians as they were descended from Gerberga sister of Otto the Great and her husband Giselbert of Lorraine/Lotharingia through their daughter Alberada. He names the siblings of Louis of Dagsberg as Giselbert de Roucy, Renaud who became count of Hainault when Bruno of Koln divided Lotharingia c959 and was killed at peronne 973, Bruno bishop of Langres, Otto father of Louis of Chiny, Hedwig who married Sigfrid of Luxemburg and Gerberga the wife of Fromond of Sens, 5 of whom he notes took their names from their maternal relatives.
>>>
>>> There are obviously problems with this not least that Bruno of Langres says in 991 at Verzy synod that he had only one brother, so Louis of Dagsburg would have had to have died by then. Also AIUI the original Renaud de Roucy whoever he was, in fact was a strong ally of Louis IV of France in the 940s, so the family must have changed sides abruptly when the king suddenly died leaving a boy of 13. The original Renaud de Roucy is usually marked as dying in 967, but Munier quotes St.Pierre le Vif again to the contrary to suggest there were 2 separate Renauds. This chronicle says a famine occured which Munier says is the one mentioned in 942 by Flodard, and the Sens account
>>> says 3 yrs after this the city was surrendered to Renaud count of Reims [945] but Fromond attacked and broke into the castel of st colombe and Renaud was killed in the rout 27 august.
>>>
>>> AIUI Renaud was not really count of Reims but later built a castle at Roucy nearby sometime later, and this account or Muniers interpretation is different to what I see elsewhere, so I wonder if he has made a mistake with the date of this event or if its a different Renaud.
>> Renaud (or Ragenoldus) was repeatedly called count by Flodoard and he
>> was excommunicated by an archbishop of Reims for hanging on to property
>> belonging to the cathedral, so his power evidently covered that area and
>> some historians conclude that he was count of Reims.
>
> Not having access to this chronicle I dont know if Munier was correct
> in his dating of the events to 945. If this Renaud died 27/8/945 as he claims,
> it must be a different Renaud who built Roucy c948 and died 967, although
> it seems that Flodoard is refering to just 1 man not 2 under Louis IV.

There is uncertainty about who was who, one man or two - Flodoard
mentioned a Viking leader 'Ragenoldus, princeps Nordmannorum' a few
times in the 920s: in 924 he was devastating the lands of Hugo Magnus,
duke of the Franks, because he had not yet been given possessions of his
own within Francia; he made a pact with Hugo in the same year and went
off to pillage in Burgundy instead; by the end of that year (described
at the start of 925 by Flodoard) he was pursued by Hugo's brother-in-law
Rodulf, by then king of the Franks, with a force including soldiers from
Reims. After that, nothing is heard of him until early in 944 when Louis
IV gave the castrum of Montigny near Soissons (which had belonged to
Heribert II of Vermandois) to a Ragenold, whom Flodoard named without
qualification. The upshot was a good deal of strife back and forth with
Heribert's followers until 945 when Louis raised a force of Vikings to
ravage Vermandois. Hugo Magnus won a victory over the Vikings, expelling
them from his lands, and promptly sent hostages to Reims so that
Ragenold would meet with him on the king's behalf. From this time on
there is a consistent record of a Renaud as count at Reims and also in
948 erecting a castrum at Roucy from which his presumed descendants took
their title - in this context he is described as a count of Louis IV
("quandam munitionem, quam Ragenoldus, comes Ludowici, super Axonam
fluvium, in loco qui dicitur Rauciacus, aedificabat").

>>
>> As for the Louis "comes Alemannorum" who died as a monk at
>> Saint-Pierre-le-Vif in Sens, probably ca 1023, he was not a brother but
>> a first cousin of bishop Bruno of Langres, a son of the latter's
>> maternal uncle Charles of Laon, duke of lower Lorraine. The notion that
>> Louis of Dagsbourg was this man, a Carolingian, is far-fetched to say
>> the least. Munier returned to this hobby-horse subject seven years after
>> the article you mention, in 'A propos de Louis de Dabo, comes
>> Alemanorum, aieul du Pape Léon IX', /Revue de droit canonique/ 57 (2009)
>> - but the case didn't get any stronger in the interval. The epitaph of
>> Louis who died in Sens described him as "regali de stirpe", of the royal
>> bloodline, i.e. as a grandson of king Louis IV rather than of his wife,
>> Bruno's grandmother Gerberga: this is not a description that would be
>> applied at Sens to someone whose nearest royal ancestor was Henry the
>> Fowler, father of a maternal grandmother.
>
> So Louis of Dasburg wasnt the same man as mentioned in the Sens account,
> but can the Moyenmoutier evidence be used to establish a maternal ancestry?
> AIUI the records of Moyenmoutier were all burnt at the revolution, so these claims
> cant be checked.

According to Franz Legl almost nothing can be learned about the
ancestors of Leo IX's mother Heilwig of Dagsbourg, and the origin of her
mother is completely obscure. From the mention of her first language, as
you have already noted, Legl assumed that her parents probably came from
an area oriented towards the West Frankish kingdom, but nothing beyond that.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Incidentally, in the course of this strife count Ragenold/Renaud of
Roucy may have married his sister to Waldric, count of Soissons - and if
so they may have been children of the 920s Viking Ragenold. At any rate
Guido, successor and probably son of Waldric in Soissons, was described
as a first cousin by bishop Bruno of Langres at the same council in 991
when he called Renaud's presumed son Gislebert his only brother. Guido
of Soissons did not belong to the Vermandois family as often mistakenly
asserted.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 02-Dec-21 7:34 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> On 02-Dec-21 5:05 AM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

>> Not having access to this chronicle I dont know if Munier was correct
>> in his dating of the events to 945. If this Renaud died 27/8/945 as he
>> claims,
>> it must be a different Renaud who built Roucy c948 and died 967, although
>> it seems that Flodoard is refering to just 1 man not 2 under Louis IV.

Munier's date of 27 July (not August) 945 comes from misunderstanding
the chronicle of Saint-Pierre-le-Vif - according to this, count Renaud
escaped a counter-attack in Sens by viscount Fromond on 29 July in the
third year after the famine that Flodoard had reported under 942.
Fromond slaughtered many of Renaud's men, who were resting around
midday, while the rest ran off. Munier wrongly thought that 'IIII
kalendas augusti' means 27 rather than correctly 29 July, and he did not
know enough Latin to realise that 'Rainaldus comes fuga lapsus est'
means that he slipped away, not that he passed away.

The interval of two decades whenh Ragenold/Renaud is not mentioned may
be just a period during which he settled with his followers in the Reims
area, or it may be that Flodoard was writing about two different
namesakes, in that case probably father and son, on either side of the
interval. However, if Renaud of Roucy was the man active in the early
920s he appears to have taken a long time to get married and have
children since his wife's son Bruno of Langres was aged 24 when ordained
in 981, i.e. born in 957. Also, if Bruno's first cousin Guy, count of
Soissons, was son of a sister of Renaud then the latter more probably
belonged to a generation born after Ragenold the Viking had invaded
Francia - unless of course he had brought along a sister raiding with
him who was (much later) thought a suitable bride for a Frankish count.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 01-Dec-21 6:18 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

Opinions of historians differ starkly on the question of whether or not
Renaud was count of Reims or of Roucy.

Fernand Vercauteren in 1930 took many past historians to task over this,
insisting they must be wrong to call Renaud count of Reims. His evidence
for this was argument simply because Flodoard wrote that the countship
was granted to archbishop Artaud in 940: Vercauteren assumed that this
must logically mean there could be no more lay counts afterwards. He
dismissed two later sourcs explicitly calling him count of Reims but
then adduced an even later one in support of his idea that Renaud's
grandson Ebles had acquired the countship of Reims only when he was
elected archbishop in 1021.

However, Flodoard also wrote that in 947 count Renaud along with
archbishop Artaud's brother and soldiers of Reims defended property of
the diocese against a former archbishop's nephew, who was plundering
from a fortress ("munitio") he had built on the Marne. In 957 Flodoard
described Roucy as a fortress (also "munitio") of Renaud, not specifying
it as the base of his countship as Vercauteren assumed it to be.

Vercauteren offered no reason why Renaud, and explicitly titled count
and owning Roucy (approximately 25 kms from Reims) could not have been
effectively advocate of the archdiocese and principal feudatory of the
archbishop, whether or not he was ever formally titled count 'of Reims'.
In a similar way, for instance, Immed IV was diocesan count of Utrecht a
few decades later - arrangements such as this were more common in
Lotharingia than in Francia, but not unexampled as Vercauteren
arbitrarily supposed.

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:22:06 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 02-Dec-21 7:34 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> > On 02-Dec-21 5:05 AM, mike davis wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Not having access to this chronicle I dont know if Munier was correct
> >> in his dating of the events to 945. If this Renaud died 27/8/945 as he
> >> claims,
> >> it must be a different Renaud who built Roucy c948 and died 967, although
> >> it seems that Flodoard is refering to just 1 man not 2 under Louis IV.
> Munier's date of 27 July (not August) 945 comes from misunderstanding
> the chronicle of Saint-Pierre-le-Vif - according to this, count Renaud
> escaped a counter-attack in Sens by viscount Fromond on 29 July in the
> third year after the famine that Flodoard had reported under 942.
> Fromond slaughtered many of Renaud's men, who were resting around
> midday, while the rest ran off. Munier wrongly thought that 'IIII
> kalendas augusti' means 27 rather than correctly 29 July, and he did not
> know enough Latin to realise that 'Rainaldus comes fuga lapsus est'
> means that he slipped away, not that he passed away.

I thought that Munier must have been wrong on this, so thankyou
for pointing out this error. my latin isnt good enough to risk correcting
others in public.

>
> The interval of two decades whenh Ragenold/Renaud is not mentioned may
> be just a period during which he settled with his followers in the Reims
> area, or it may be that Flodoard was writing about two different
> namesakes, in that case probably father and son, on either side of the
> interval. However, if Renaud of Roucy was the man active in the early
> 920s he appears to have taken a long time to get married and have
> children since his wife's son Bruno of Langres was aged 24 when ordained
> in 981, i.e. born in 957. Also, if Bruno's first cousin Guy, count of
> Soissons, was son of a sister of Renaud then the latter more probably
> belonged to a generation born after Ragenold the Viking had invaded
> Francia - unless of course he had brought along a sister raiding with
> him who was (much later) thought a suitable bride for a Frankish count.
>
> Peter Stewart

if Bruno of Langres was only born in 957, that does have implications for the rest of
the roucy family. Even if Giselbert and perhaps Louis were 10 years older than
Bruno, its hard to see how a man that young can be the "Louis Otto of Dagsburg"
who Schoepflin says he found referenced as the founder of St.Quirinus in the Vosges.
in 966. So either Schoepflin was mistaken, or Munier is wrong to attach him to the
Roucy family. I'm assuming that Jean de Bayon and Schoepflin didnt make Louis up
that is. I know that Renaud's wife Alberada is only assumed to be his wife from
other evidence rather than a definite statement, but if she is definitely the daughter of
Giselbert of LTR and Gerberga of Saxony [and not an earlier union] then she probably
was born after 928, so I assume she became the ward of her stepfather Louis IV and
he gave her to Renaud sometime in the 940s or at any rate before 954? Either way the
idea of Louis of Dagsburg coming from Roucy family despite the onomastic accord
that Munier cites, seems more unlikely.

Mike

[Fraser McNair]

<big snip>

Beyond the fact they've got a version of the same name, there really is no reason whatsoever to connect the Viking leader Rognvald with Ragenold of Roucy. Rognvald's career is pretty straightforward - he shows up on the Loire c. 920, is omnipresent in Flodoard's annals for about five years, then leads his host into a battle at Chaumont, is crushed, and utterly disappears. It's almost certain he's killed. Ragenold of Roucy shows up two decades later with the same name, but by the same token so does, say, Viscount Rainald of Aubusson.

As for whether he's count of Roucy or Rheims: on one hand, he shows up in _Chartes de Cluny_, no. 730, as Rainaldus Remensis comitis [sic], which is as good by way of evidence as anything. However, I think getting hung up, like Vercauteren, on whether person X was count of 'place X' or 'place Y' rather misses the point. Counts - especially men like Ragenold whose status was so heavily tied to royal favour - didn't _have_ to be counts of anywhere in particular. (See on this Charles West, 'Principautés et territoires: comtes et comtés'; but Charles the Simple's favourite Hagano, in the generation prior to Ragenold's, is a case in point.) Comital title could be as much about status as about jurisdiction. Ragenold was rich, well-connected, and up in your face, and that was evidently good enough for contemporaries.

F

[Peter Stewart]

On 03-Dec-21 5:58 AM, Fraser McNair wrote:
> <big snip>
>
> Beyond the fact they've got a version of the same name, there really is no reason whatsoever to connect the Viking leader Rognvald with Ragenold of Roucy. Rognvald's career is pretty straightforward - he shows up on the Loire c. 920, is omnipresent in Flodoard's annals for about five years, then leads his host into a battle at Chaumont, is crushed, and utterly disappears. It's almost certain he's killed. Ragenold of Roucy shows up two decades later with the same name, but by the same token so does, say, Viscount Rainald of Aubusson.

Except that Aubusson is nowhere near Reims, the area in which both
Ragenolds appear within two decades of each other. Also the orthography
used for both by Flodoard (Ragenoldus, rather than Rainaldus that was
more frequent in the mid-10th century) has been taken to suggest that
the original Norse name may have been Ragnvald, following a pattern of
baptism with a vaguely similar or alliterative name (e.g. Rollo/Robert).
Flodoard distinguished between some namesakes, for instance by the use
of second names (such as Albus for Hugo Magnus, possibly a
mistranscription of Abbas), but gave no indication of this in the
occurrences of Ragenold/s except in the change between calling one
leader of the Northmen ("princeps Nordmannorum") and the other "comes"
without a territorial designation (that was anyway not usually stated
for counts in his time, as you point out).

> As for whether he's count of Roucy or Rheims: on one hand, he shows up in _Chartes de Cluny_, no. 730, as Rainaldus Remensis comitis [sic], which is as good by way of evidence as anything. However, I think getting hung up, like Vercauteren, on whether person X was count of 'place X' or 'place Y' rather misses the point. Counts - especially men like Ragenold whose status was so heavily tied to royal favour - didn't _have_ to be counts of anywhere in particular. (See on this Charles West, 'Principautés et territoires: comtes et comtés'; but Charles the Simple's favourite Hagano, in the generation prior to Ragenold's, is a case in point.) Comital title could be as much about status as about jurisdiction. Ragenold was rich, well-connected, and up in your face, and that was evidently good enough for contemporaries.

Vercauteren would have rejected the Cluny charter evidence on the same
basis as the two chronicles calling Renaud count of Reims, that this was
retrospective from a century or more later - in this case, a
semi-literate mention from the second half of the 11th century in the
cartulary of abbot Aimard, here:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10545027z/f307.item ("Rainald[us]
REMENS[IS] COMITIS" at the end of no. 29 just above the red rubric for
no. 30).

A count who did not exercise authority in a particular place would not
normally be found leading soldiery from a particular place to defend
possessions of its prelate. Flodoard called Renaud (whom I think to be
the second namesake) "count of Louis [IV]", but this doesn't necessarily
indicate a count palatine or some kind of roving commission.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 03-Dec-21 5:13 AM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

> if Bruno of Langres was only born in 957, that does have implications for the rest of
> the roucy family. Even if Giselbert and perhaps Louis were 10 years older than
> Bruno, its hard to see how a man that young can be the "Louis Otto of Dagsburg"
> who Schoepflin says he found referenced as the founder of St.Quirinus in the Vosges.
> in 966. So either Schoepflin was mistaken, or Munier is wrong to attach him to the
> Roucy family. I'm assuming that Jean de Bayon and Schoepflin didnt make Louis up
> that is. I know that Renaud's wife Alberada is only assumed to be his wife from
> other evidence rather than a definite statement, but if she is definitely the daughter of
> Giselbert of LTR and Gerberga of Saxony [and not an earlier union] then she probably
> was born after 928, so I assume she became the ward of her stepfather Louis IV and
> he gave her to Renaud sometime in the 940s or at any rate before 954? Either way the
> idea of Louis of Dagsburg coming from Roucy family despite the onomastic accord
> that Munier cites, seems more unlikely.

Bruno's birth in 957 is indicated in an obituary notice from
Saint-Bénigne de Dijon stating that he was in his 60th year when he died
(in 1016), and according to the chronicle of the same abbey he was aged
24 when ordained in 981.

Munier is wrong in trying to identify any count Louis as a brother of
Gislebert and Bruno, unquestionably. They were certainly sons of
Alberada, and if there had been a half-brother on their father's side
disregarded in Bruno's "only brother" statement he would necessarily
have been older than Gislebert since Alberada outlived Renaud of Roucy.
Gislebert disposed of half and kept half of the viscountcy of Reims
according to a tract written at Saint-Remi ca 1100, that contradicts
Vercauteren's idea about his (probable) son Ebles only acquiring comital
rights there when elected archbishop. No Louis occurs as a successor to
Renaud in either Reims or Roucy, and Renaud does not occur in Dagsbourg.
Onomastics have misled better researchers than Munier.

Peter Stewart

[Fraser McNair]

<snip?

> Except that Aubusson is nowhere near Reims, the area in which both
> Ragenolds appear within two decades of each other. Also the orthography
> used for both by Flodoard (Ragenoldus, rather than Rainaldus that was
> more frequent in the mid-10th century) has been taken to suggest that
> the original Norse name may have been Ragnvald, following a pattern of
> baptism with a vaguely similar or alliterative name (e.g. Rollo/Robert).
> Flodoard distinguished between some namesakes, for instance by the use
> of second names (such as Albus for Hugo Magnus, possibly a
> mistranscription of Abbas), but gave no indication of this in the
> occurrences of Ragenold/s except in the change between calling one
> leader of the Northmen ("princeps Nordmannorum") and the other "comes"
> without a territorial designation (that was anyway not usually stated
> for counts in his time, as you point out).

Except that Rognvald the viking leader doesn't show up in Rheims. Flodoard says that he's the leader of the Northmen on the Loire, that he briefly crosses the Oise in 923 but returns to Artois shortly afterwards. Then there's raiding and counter-raiding across the Oise, before Rognvald returns to the Loire - where he's clearly identified as being based - to raid there for 924. Then, Hugh the Great and William the Younger of Aquitaine - so, magnates either side of the Loire - make a deal with him to go and raid in Burgundy, which he therefore does before being defeat and, probably, killed at Chaumont. I will grant he gets closer to Rheims than Aubusson, but his base of operations is clearly identified as being on the Loire.

As for distinguishing between namesakes, he clearly felt that a Frankish aristocrat from the 940s was in no danger of being confused with a Viking raider from 920s. See for instance his failure to distinguish between Reginar II (last in his annals s.a. 928) and Reginar III (first appearance s.a. 953).

> Vercauteren would have rejected the Cluny charter evidence on the same
> basis as the two chronicles calling Renaud count of Reims, that this was
> retrospective from a century or more later - in this case, a
> semi-literate mention from the second half of the 11th century in the
> cartulary of abbot Aimard, here:
> https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10545027z/f307.item ("Rainald[us]
> REMENS[IS] COMITIS" at the end of no. 29 just above the red rubric for
> no. 30).

On consideration, I don't have any objection to Vercauteren's objection to the Cluny charter, having made similar objections myself to an alleged 'count of Boulogne' in Ghent charters.

> A count who did not exercise authority in a particular place would not
> normally be found leading soldiery from a particular place to defend
> possessions of its prelate. Flodoard called Renaud (whom I think to be
> the second namesake) "count of Louis [IV]", but this doesn't necessarily
> indicate a count palatine or some kind of roving commission.

In theory, I agree about the question of exercising authority, but differ about what that means. Does one have to have a specific administrative or jurisdictional competence to exercise authority in a place? Clearly not: if one had lands, family and/or allies, that is good enough. (Off the top of my head, one can see in the latter part of the tenth century Count Lambert of Chalon exercising authority in both Autunois and Mâconnais on precisely these grounds.) Ragenold's authority in Rheims appears to have derived from his closeness to the king, his allies in the region, and his landed estates, rather than whether or not he was or was not 'count of Rheims' (he may have been, he may not have been, it probably didn't matter all that much). The 947 attack is a case in point, as Ragenold's part came from the fact that he, like Dodo, was a trusted ally of and proven military commander for Louis IV and Archbishop Artald - the same reason he led troops against Vitry in 952 and Poitiers in 955 (this latter obviously not under Louis IV but Lothar inherited his father's allies during his early years).

F

[Peter Stewart]

On 03-Dec-21 9:02 AM, Fraser McNair wrote:
> <snip?
>> Except that Aubusson is nowhere near Reims, the area in which both
>> Ragenolds appear within two decades of each other. Also the orthography
>> used for both by Flodoard (Ragenoldus, rather than Rainaldus that was
>> more frequent in the mid-10th century) has been taken to suggest that
>> the original Norse name may have been Ragnvald, following a pattern of
>> baptism with a vaguely similar or alliterative name (e.g. Rollo/Robert).
>> Flodoard distinguished between some namesakes, for instance by the use
>> of second names (such as Albus for Hugo Magnus, possibly a
>> mistranscription of Abbas), but gave no indication of this in the
>> occurrences of Ragenold/s except in the change between calling one
>> leader of the Northmen ("princeps Nordmannorum") and the other "comes"
>> without a territorial designation (that was anyway not usually stated
>> for counts in his time, as you point out).
>
> Except that Rognvald the viking leader doesn't show up in Rheims. Flodoard says that he's the leader of the Northmen on the Loire, that he briefly crosses the Oise in 923 but returns to Artois shortly afterwards. Then there's raiding and counter-raiding across the Oise, before Rognvald returns to the Loire - where he's clearly identified as being based - to raid there for 924. Then, Hugh the Great and William the Younger of Aquitaine - so, magnates either side of the Loire - make a deal with him to go and raid in Burgundy, which he therefore does before being defeat and, probably, killed at Chaumont. I will grant he gets closer to Rheims than Aubusson, but his base of operations is clearly identified as being on the Loire.

I mentioned in an earlier post that under 925 Flodoard said King Rodulf
pursued Ragenold in Burgundy with soldiers from Reims - I don't suppose
he took them via the Loire valley. Viking raiders were not confined to
established bases.

> As for distinguishing between namesakes, he clearly felt that a Frankish aristocrat from the 940s was in no danger of being confused with a Viking raider from 920s. See for instance his failure to distinguish between Reginar II (last in his annals s.a. 928) and Reginar III (first appearance s.a. 953).

These Reginars were father and son - your argument, to which I was
directly responding, was that "there really is no reason whatsoever to
connect the Viking leader Rognvald with Ragenold of Roucy". As for
clarity, why do you think historians have debated whether Flodoard
referred to one Ragenold or two if his intention is clear?

>
>> Vercauteren would have rejected the Cluny charter evidence on the same
>> basis as the two chronicles calling Renaud count of Reims, that this was
>> retrospective from a century or more later - in this case, a
>> semi-literate mention from the second half of the 11th century in the
>> cartulary of abbot Aimard, here:
>> https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10545027z/f307.item ("Rainald[us]
>> REMENS[IS] COMITIS" at the end of no. 29 just above the red rubric for
>> no. 30).
>
> On consideration, I don't have any objection to Vercauteren's objection to the Cluny charter, having made similar objections myself to an alleged 'count of Boulogne' in Ghent charters.

Vercauteren didn't object to the Cluny charter - he didn't mention it:
that is why I wrote "would have rejected ...". He also did not notice
that the chronicle of Saint-Pierre-le-Vif (written 1108/9) had copied
the title "count of Reims" from the earlier Sens history (written
1015/34) in another passage that he omitted, and that this was also
copied in a third source written later at Sens. He thought that these
authors were writing far from Reims and from their distance lumped Reims
and Roucy together, neglecting that Renaud had briefly held Sens in 945
before being chased out as misrepresented by Munier.

>
>> A count who did not exercise authority in a particular place would not
>> normally be found leading soldiery from a particular place to defend
>> possessions of its prelate. Flodoard called Renaud (whom I think to be
>> the second namesake) "count of Louis [IV]", but this doesn't necessarily
>> indicate a count palatine or some kind of roving commission.
>
>
> In theory, I agree about the question of exercising authority, but differ about what that means. Does one have to have a specific administrative or jurisdictional competence to exercise authority in a place? Clearly not: if one had lands, family and/or allies, that is good enough. (Off the top of my head, one can see in the latter part of the tenth century Count Lambert of Chalon exercising authority in both Autunois and Mâconnais on precisely these grounds.) Ragenold's authority in Rheims appears to have derived from his closeness to the king, his allies in the region, and his landed estates, rather than whether or not he was or was not 'count of Rheims' (he may have been, he may not have been, it probably didn't matter all that much). The 947 attack is a case in point, as Ragenold's part came from the fact that he, like Dodo, was a trusted ally of and proven military commander for Louis IV and Archbishop Artald - the same reason he led troops against Vitry in 952 and Poitiers in 955 (this latter obviously not under Louis IV but Lothar inherited his father's allies during his early years).

See my prior post about Gislebert and the viscountcy of Reims - this is
evidence for jurisdiction in the city a generation after Renaud, not for
interference there by a magnate from the vicinity.

Peter Stewart

[Fraser McNair]

<snip>

> I mentioned in an earlier post that under 925 Flodoard said King Rodulf
> pursued Ragenold in Burgundy with soldiers from Reims - I don't suppose
> he took them via the Loire valley. Viking raiders were not confined to
> established bases.

Ralph probably did lead them against a fleet based on the Loire, actually, or close enough to. The most obvious interpretation of Rognvald's activities in 924/5 is that the 'leader of the Northmen who dwelled on the Loire' raided Hugh the Great's lands from the Loire, then made peace with Hugh and William the Younger (south of the Loire) to go to Burgundy - i.e., continue down the Loire, from when he carried out the raids which ultimately led to the defeat at Chauont. Whether or not this supposition is right, though, the point is that there's no connection between Rognvald and Rheims at all.

> These Reginars were father and son - your argument, to which I was
> directly responding, was that "there really is no reason whatsoever to
> connect the Viking leader Rognvald with Ragenold of Roucy". As for
> clarity, why do you think historians have debated whether Flodoard
> referred to one Ragenold or two if his intention is clear?

...Honestly? Historiographically speaking, as far as I can tell, because Henri de Moranville came up with a wrong argument and his article on Ragenold of Roucy was the go-to for long enough that it became embedded even though there's no good reason for it. There might be a longer history to that particular identification; but ultimately it doesn't really matter whether or not nineteenth-century historians were confused or not (and I will say that this is not a live question in modern scholarship) - Flodoard clearly had no reason to think that his contemporaries would be confused by two people with the same names when they were from completely different backgrounds several decades apart. This was the point of bringing up the Reginars - Flodoard doesn't distinguish between them even though they _were_ related and active in the same place, because they were far apart enough chronologically that it didn't matter. A similar case is his Count Bernards: he doesn't distinguish between the Count Bernard of 933 and the two Count Bernards of 945, even though the 933 Bernard cannot have been both, presumably because the distinction would have been entirely evident to a tenth-century audience.

> Vercauteren didn't object to the Cluny charter - he didn't mention it:
> that is why I wrote "would have rejected ...". He also did not notice
> that the chronicle of Saint-Pierre-le-Vif (written 1108/9) had copied
> the title "count of Reims" from the earlier Sens history (written
> 1015/34) in another passage that he omitted, and that this was also
> copied in a third source written later at Sens. He thought that these
> authors were writing far from Reims and from their distance lumped Reims
> and Roucy together, neglecting that Renaud had briefly held Sens in 945
> before being chased out as misrepresented by Munier.

You know, I didn't _think_ Vercauteren knew that charter, but it's been years since I read it and I don't have it on hand to check. Like I originally said, personally I'm happy that, at some point, Ragenold of Roucy was at one point or another called 'count of Rheims', but I also think it's pretty evident that his nominal administrative jurisdiction was a secondary part of his authority.

> See my prior post about Gislebert and the viscountcy of Reims - this is
> evidence for jurisdiction in the city a generation after Renaud, not for
> interference there by a magnate from the vicinity.

The _Libellus discordiae_, a twelfth-century polemical text complete with twelfth-century style _comitatus_ and _vicecomitatus_, clearly in context reified financial rights treated as property rather than Carolingian-style jurisdictions, has its limits as a guide to tenth century conditions. The monks who wrote it had their own concerns and their own understandings of centuries past which made Gislebert's holding of specific _comitatus_ rights important to them. Personally, I am rather happier to note that when an exact contemporary, Flodoard, described Ragenold, he saw him as a _comes Ludowici_ - that is, a man whose authority fundamentally rested on closeness to the king rather than nominal jurisdiction. Like I say, I'm quite happy to accept that Ragenold, at some points in his career, was count of Rheims - I wouldn't have brought up that Cluny charter otherwise - but splitting hairs, like Vercauteren, over whether or not he was or was not count of 'place X' or 'place Y', isn't the most useful way of understanding his political position.

F

[Peter Stewart]

On 03-Dec-21 11:21 AM, Fraser McNair wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> I mentioned in an earlier post that under 925 Flodoard said King Rodulf
>> pursued Ragenold in Burgundy with soldiers from Reims - I don't suppose
>> he took them via the Loire valley. Viking raiders were not confined to
>> established bases.
>
> Ralph probably did lead them against a fleet based on the Loire, actually, or close enough to. The most obvious interpretation of Rognvald's activities in 924/5 is that the 'leader of the Northmen who dwelled on the Loire' raided Hugh the Great's lands from the Loire, then made peace with Hugh and William the Younger (south of the Loire) to go to Burgundy - i.e., continue down the Loire, from when he carried out the raids which ultimately led to the defeat at Chauont. Whether or not this supposition is right, though, the point is that there's no connection between Rognvald and Rheims at all.

So why would Raoul rely on soldiery of the Reims archdiocese ("militibus
scilicet Remensis aecclesiae") if their home had not been menaced by
Ragenold? I doubt that this was haphazard. Unless you consider that the
first Ragenold was of such major concern throughout Francia that men
from anywhere might be called on to chase him down and therefore he
might be expected to show up in sources with a broader or different
purview than Flodoard's written at Reims, I can't see why you are
insisting on this.

>> These Reginars were father and son - your argument, to which I was
>> directly responding, was that "there really is no reason whatsoever to
>> connect the Viking leader Rognvald with Ragenold of Roucy". As for
>> clarity, why do you think historians have debated whether Flodoard
>> referred to one Ragenold or two if his intention is clear?
>
>
> ...Honestly? Historiographically speaking, as far as I can tell, because Henri de Moranville came up with a wrong argument and his article on Ragenold of Roucy was the go-to for long enough that it became embedded even though there's no good reason for it. There might be a longer history to that particular identification; but ultimately it doesn't really matter whether or not nineteenth-century historians were confused or not (and I will say that this is not a live question in modern scholarship) - Flodoard clearly had no reason to think that his contemporaries would be confused by two people with the same names when they were from completely different backgrounds several decades apart. This was the point of bringing up the Reginars - Flodoard doesn't distinguish between them even though they _were_ related and active in the same place, because they were far apart enough chronologically that it didn't matter. A similar case is his Count Bernards: he doesn't distinguish between the Count Bernard of 933 and the two Count Bernards of 945, even though the 933 Bernard cannot have been both, presumably because the distinction would have been entirely evident to a tenth-century audience.

And Flodoard is so clear aout this that the Bernards have never been
conclusively sorted out...

The identification of Ragenold the raider chief with Renaud the count
was made by Melleville before Moranvillé. You are arguing in an
unbecomingly egocentric circle in asserting that Flodoard clearly meant
just what you take him to mean and nothing else. I agree that there were
most probably two distinct Ragenolds, but my agreement doesn't make it
factually so any more than does your reading of Flodoard's thoughts.
Schwennicke and others have much more recently taken, and propagated, a
different view.

>> Vercauteren didn't object to the Cluny charter - he didn't mention it:
>> that is why I wrote "would have rejected ...". He also did not notice
>> that the chronicle of Saint-Pierre-le-Vif (written 1108/9) had copied
>> the title "count of Reims" from the earlier Sens history (written
>> 1015/34) in another passage that he omitted, and that this was also
>> copied in a third source written later at Sens. He thought that these
>> authors were writing far from Reims and from their distance lumped Reims
>> and Roucy together, neglecting that Renaud had briefly held Sens in 945
>> before being chased out as misrepresented by Munier.
>
> You know, I didn't _think_ Vercauteren knew that charter, but it's been years since I read it and I don't have it on hand to check. Like I originally said, personally I'm happy that, at some point, Ragenold of Roucy was at one point or another called 'count of Rheims', but I also think it's pretty evident that his nominal administrative jurisdiction was a secondary part of his authority.
>
>> See my prior post about Gislebert and the viscountcy of Reims - this is
>> evidence for jurisdiction in the city a generation after Renaud, not for
>> interference there by a magnate from the vicinity.
>
> The _Libellus discordiae_, a twelfth-century polemical text complete with twelfth-century style _comitatus_ and _vicecomitatus_, clearly in context reified financial rights treated as property rather than Carolingian-style jurisdictions, has its limits as a guide to tenth century conditions. The monks who wrote it had their own concerns and their own understandings of centuries past which made Gislebert's holding of specific _comitatus_ rights important to them. Personally, I am rather happier to note that when an exact contemporary, Flodoard, described Ragenold, he saw him as a _comes Ludowici_ - that is, a man whose authority fundamentally rested on closeness to the king rather than nominal jurisdiction. Like I say, I'm quite happy to accept that Ragenold, at some points in his career, was count of Rheims - I wouldn't have brought up that Cluny charter otherwise - but splitting hairs, like Vercauteren, over whether or not he was or was not count of 'place X' or 'place Y', isn't the most useful way of understanding his political position.

Michel Bur understood from the Saint-Remi side of the controversy that
Gislebert was viscount of Reims, though it seems to me he was count (as
titled in the source) when dividing the viscountcy in half - if the
story is true.

Bur thought that the elder Renaud was father (by a first wife) of count
Waldric of Soissons and (by a second) of count Renaud of Roucy,
accounting for the cousin relationship between bishop Bruno of Langres
and count Guy of Soissons, and also that Waldric was perhaps related to
the counts of Anjou. The last is a weak case based only on his
subscribing, along with count Geoffroy Grisegonelle's uncle bishop Guy
of Soissons, an undated charter reforming an Angevin abbey apparently
issued on 19 June in either 966 or (more probably) 963.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 02-Dec-21 4:31 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>

> Vercauteren offered no reason why Renaud, and explicitly titled count
> and owning Roucy (approximately 25 kms from Reims) could not have been
> effectively advocate of the archdiocese and principal feudatory of the
> archbishop, whether or not he was ever formally titled count 'of Reims'.
> In a similar way, for instance, Immed IV was diocesan count of Utrecht a
> few decades later - arrangements such as this were more common in
> Lotharingia than in Francia, but not unexampled as Vercauteren
> arbitrarily supposed.

It is notable in this context that Richer named a 'Ragenerus Remensium
vicedominus' at the synod of Mouzon in 995, here (lines 11-12)
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_38/index.htm#page/300/mode/1up - in other
words, a vidame exercising comital powers for the archbishop. Whether or
not such an office had been instituted some 50 years earlier, and held
then by count Renaud, the practice of delegating authority to a layman
was hardly as unthinkable after the grant of 940 as Vercauteren supposed.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 03-Dec-21 2:06 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>

> Bur thought that the elder Renaud was father (by a first wife) of count
> Waldric of Soissons and (by a second) of count Renaud of Roucy,
> accounting for the cousin relationship between bishop Bruno of Langres
> and count Guy of Soissons, and also that Waldric was perhaps related to
> the counts of Anjou. The last is a weak case based only on his
> subscribing, along with count Geoffroy Grisegonelle's uncle bishop Guy
> of Soissons, an undated charter reforming an Angevin abbey apparently
> issued on 19 June in either 966 or (more probably) 963.

I hadn't noticed before how widespread is the dating of this important
charter to 966 - Olivier Guillot in /Le comte d'Anjou et son entourage
au XIe siècle/ (1972) and many historians since have accepted without
question the dating explanation given in /Cartulaire de l'abbaye de
Saint-Aubin d'Angers/, vol. 1 (1896), p. 4 no. 2 note 2, following the
frequently inaccurate annals of the abbey under 966 stating that on 19
June in that year the canons were replaced by monks ("De monasterio
Sancti Albini canonici sunt ejecti et monachi sunt intromissi XIII
kalendas julii"). This was the business of the charter in question.

However, the editor had apparently forgotten a charter of the first
regular abbot, Widbold (named as newly-appointed in the charter
subscribed by Waldric) that is dated May 964 (vol. 1 pp. 326-327 no.
285: "Widboldus, abba ex monasterio Sancti Albini ... Data mense maio,
anno decimo regnante Hlothario rege").

The annalist for this period, evidently working at the end of the 10th
century, or more likely a later copyist probably misread the year 963,
'DCCCCLXIII', as if ending with 'VI' instead of 'III'.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 03-Dec-21 8:21 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 03-Dec-21 5:58 AM, Fraser McNair wrote:
>> <big snip>
>>
>> Beyond the fact they've got a version of the same name, there really
>> is no reason whatsoever to connect the Viking leader Rognvald with
>> Ragenold of Roucy. Rognvald's career is pretty straightforward - he
>> shows up on the Loire c. 920, is omnipresent in Flodoard's annals for
>> about five years, then leads his host into a battle at Chaumont, is
>> crushed, and utterly disappears. It's almost certain he's killed.
>> Ragenold of Roucy shows up two decades later with the same name,  but
>> by the same token so does, say, Viscount Rainald of Aubusson.
>
> Except that Aubusson is nowhere near Reims, the area in which both
> Ragenolds appear within two decades of each other. Also the orthography
> used for both by Flodoard (Ragenoldus, rather than Rainaldus that was
> more frequent in the mid-10th century) has been taken to suggest that
> the original Norse name may have been Ragnvald, following a pattern of
> baptism with a vaguely similar or alliterative name (e.g. Rollo/Robert).
> Flodoard distinguished between some namesakes, for instance by the use
> of second names (such as Albus for Hugo Magnus, possibly a
> mistranscription of Abbas), but gave no indication of this in the
> occurrences of Ragenold/s except in the change between calling one
> leader of the Northmen ("princeps Nordmannorum") and the other "comes"
> without a territorial designation (that was anyway not usually stated
> for counts in his time, as you point out).

Interestingly, Flodoard himself used the form Rainaldus for an earlier
count of this name, plainly a Frank, who had correspondence with
archbishop Hincmar (between 845 & 882) about property of the Reims
archdiocese that had been recovered from plunderers, see here (lines
12-13): https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_36/index.htm#page/343/mode/1up.

According to the editor (note 90) nothing more is known about this count.

Reims of course had long been a favoured target of Vikings, and Hincmar
died in 882 while taking refuge from an attack on the city. Louis IV
while residing there in 945 raised a force of Normans to ravage
Vermandois, so they can't have been based too far away at that time.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

And see the index (here:
https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_36/index.htm#page/524/mode/1up) for four
mentions of Renaud of Roucy, repeating information already discussed
from the annals, each time using Ragenoldus or Ragenaldus instead of
Rainaldus that he had earlier used for someone else. On the theory that
Flodoard was always adequately clear about identities, what does this
distinction indicate?

Peter Stewart

[Fraser McNair]

> So why would Raoul rely on soldiery of the Reims archdiocese ("militibus
> scilicet Remensis aecclesiae") if their home had not been menaced by
> Ragenold? I doubt that this was haphazard.

The church of Rheims owed the king military service. That's why they go to Burgundy; it's why, a little later on, they go to Eu under the command of Heribert of Vermandois. Flodoard is clear that Rognvald's raiders were going back and forth over the Oise; he doesn't say they got anywhere near Rheims.

> Unless you consider that the
> first Ragenold was of such major concern throughout Francia that men
> from anywhere might be called on to chase him down and therefore he
> might be expected to show up in sources with a broader or different
> purview than Flodoard's written at Reims

Yes, explicitly so: later in 925, Ralph issued the general call-out of the kingdom's army. This makes sense: at this point Rognvald is a threat to the kingdom's security who has menaced a fair chunk of the realm, including Artois, Neustria and Burgundy - but not the area around Rheims.

As for expecting him to show up in other contemporary sources - it would be remarkable if he did, given Flodoard is the _only_ contemporary narrative from the West Frankish kingdom during these decades. In terms of near contemporary sources, though, he does actually appear in the _Miracula Sancti Benedicti_ of Aimoin of Fleury, where he seems to have left a memory as threatening as Flodoard shows him to have been at the time.

> And Flodoard is so clear aout this that the Bernards have never been
> conclusively sorted out...

Precisely - they're not clear to _us_. My point is part of the reason they're not clear to us is because a contemporary reader would have known who Flodoard was talking about without him having to distinguish in the way he does between, e.g., the different Hughs all active at the same time.

> The identification of Ragenold the raider chief with Renaud the count
> was made by Melleville before Moranvillé. You are arguing in an
> unbecomingly egocentric circle in asserting that Flodoard clearly meant
> just what you take him to mean and nothing else.

Speaking of unbecoming, let's leave out the personal attacks. There are plenty of good, scholarly reasons not to be convinced by this weak, weak identification.

> Interestingly, Flodoard himself used the form Rainaldus for an earlier
> count of this name, plainly a Frank, who had correspondence with
> archbishop Hincmar (between 845 & 882) about property of the Reims
> archdiocese that had been recovered from plunderers, see here (lines
> 12-13): https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_36/index.htm#page/343/mode/1up.
>

> According to the editor (note 90) nothing more is known about this count.  

That's not strictly accurate. This part of Flodoard's _Historia Remensis Ecclesiae_ is a summary of a letter of Archbishop Hincmar, and so 'Rainaldus' is coming straight from the source (a quick check of Hincmar's work does indeed show that he normally uses 'Rain-' for that particular radical, as in his letter to Bishop Hildebold of Soissons or his Opuscules concerning Hincmar of Laon). Flodoard seems to do this with his orthography in the _Historia_ - so, for instance, the name 'Adalgar' is 'Adalgarius' when he's copying from Archbishop Hincmar's letters and 'Adalgerius' when copying from Archbishop Fulk's.

However, bringing in the _Historia_ isn't relevant to what Flodoard does in the _Annals_, which is the text under discussion. There, he uses 'Ragen-' or 'Ragin-' for that particular radical (thus, 'Ragenarius', 'Ragenardus') in every case. With that in mind, within his annals he makes relevant distinctions between people who could be confused (e.g. 939, where he does distinguish between 'Hugh son of Richard', 'Hugh son of Robert', and 'Hugh the Cisalpine' because it's important to know which Hugh is which), and does not bother doing so between people whom none of his readers would confuse (so, for instance, he does not distinguish between 'Ralph bishop of Laon' [meaning Ralph I] and 'Ralph bishop of Laon' [meaning Ralph II]; or any of the different Pope Johns).

> Reims of course had long been a favoured target of Vikings, and Hincmar
> died in 882 while taking refuge from an attack on the city. Louis IV
> while residing there in 945 raised a force of Normans to ravage
> Vermandois, so they can't have been based too far away at that time.  

Rheims had indeed been under attack from Vikings in the 880s, and that's about it. Not exactly a 'favoured target' for Northman fleets. As for Louis' Northman army in 945, at the time he had just taken control of Rouen, and was actively fighting Hugh the Great over which of them got to rule (what later became) Normandy. These particular Northmen come from his newly acquired Rouennais supporters and have no bearing on Ragenold's background.

Let's bring this back to first principles. Being as even-handed as possible, here is the evidence for the Viking raider Rognvald being the same as Ragenold of Roucy:

1) They have the same name.
2) Flodoard does not explicitly say that they are different people.

Against the identification:

1) They lived decades apart.
2) They operated in different areas of the kingdom.
3) No source says they are the same person. This is especially significant because:
4) Flodoard had a chip on his shoulder about Normans - thus, the Romance-speaking, Christian, born-in-Gaul Counts of Rouen William Longsword and Richard the Fearless are always identified as 'Northmen' - but Ragenold isn't.

Quite frankly, points 3) and 4) against seems redundant when comparing points 1) and 2) against with point 1) for. Tenth-century figures can be arbitrarily combined or separated at leisure, but to do so on such a flimsy basis adds nothing useful or evidentially based to our understanding of the period.

F

[Peter Stewart]

On 03-Dec-21 10:11 PM, Fraser McNair wrote:
>> So why would Raoul rely on soldiery of the Reims archdiocese ("militibus
>> scilicet Remensis aecclesiae") if their home had not been menaced by
>> Ragenold? I doubt that this was haphazard.
>
> The church of Rheims owed the king military service. That's why they go to Burgundy; it's why, a little later on, they go to Eu under the command of Heribert of Vermandois. Flodoard is clear that Rognvald's raiders were going back and forth over the Oise; he doesn't say they got anywhere near Rheims.
>
>> Unless you consider that the
>> first Ragenold was of such major concern throughout Francia that men
>> from anywhere might be called on to chase him down and therefore he
>> might be expected to show up in sources with a broader or different
>> purview than Flodoard's written at Reims
>
> Yes, explicitly so: later in 925, Ralph issued the general call-out of the kingdom's army. This makes sense: at this point Rognvald is a threat to the kingdom's security who has menaced a fair chunk of the realm, including Artois, Neustria and Burgundy - but not the area around Rheims.
>
> As for expecting him to show up in other contemporary sources - it would be remarkable if he did, given Flodoard is the _only_ contemporary narrative from the West Frankish kingdom during these decades. In terms of near contemporary sources, though, he does actually appear in the _Miracula Sancti Benedicti_ of Aimoin of Fleury, where he seems to have left a memory as threatening as Flodoard shows him to have been at the time.
>
>> And Flodoard is so clear aout this that the Bernards have never been
>> conclusively sorted out...
>
> Precisely - they're not clear to _us_. My point is part of the reason they're not clear to us is because a contemporary reader would have known who Flodoard was talking about without him having to distinguish in the way he does between, e.g., the different Hughs all active at the same time.

So on the basis of Flodoard's using the form "Ragenold" you have assumed
that the Viking leader was indeed named Rognvald but that the evidently
younger man for whom he used the same name form was not? Your initial
claim was that Flodoard is perfectly clear to you and thus implicitly
should be also to me and others today.

>> The identification of Ragenold the raider chief with Renaud the count
>> was made by Melleville before Moranvillé. You are arguing in an
>> unbecomingly egocentric circle in asserting that Flodoard clearly meant
>> just what you take him to mean and nothing else.
>
> Speaking of unbecoming, let's leave out the personal attacks. There are plenty of good, scholarly reasons not to be convinced by this weak, weak identification.

It was an observation directly on the logic of your presentation of the
issue at hand, not a personal attack - criticism can't be deflected that
easily. Saying "there are plenty [a loaded word here for several] of
good scholarly reasons not to be convinced" of something is much more
reasonable in this context than asserting as you did yesterday that

"Beyond the fact they've got a version of the same name, there really is
no reason whatsoever to connect the Viking leader Rognvald with Ragenold

of Roucy". Not being convinced by a weak (once will do in rational
debate) case and finding no reason whatsoever are somewhat different
positions. I find the case for making Flodoard's two Ragenolds into one
person to be weak, but it is still widely current and appealing to the
authority of "modern scholarship" against "nineteenth-century
historians" (for some of whom Flodoard obviously wasn't as clear as you
seem to think) is not helpful to SGM readers.

The case for two distinct Ragenolds was put forward by Henri de Roussen
de Florival in his 1907 École nationale des chartes thesis, but this is
not readily accessible. However, having lived in the nineteenth century
may not be a disqualification for understanding Flodoard or for taking
careful note of chronology.

>> Interestingly, Flodoard himself used the form Rainaldus for an earlier
>> count of this name, plainly a Frank, who had correspondence with
>> archbishop Hincmar (between 845 & 882) about property of the Reims
>> archdiocese that had been recovered from plunderers, see here (lines
>> 12-13): https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_36/index.htm#page/343/mode/1up.
>>
>> According to the editor (note 90) nothing more is known about this count.
>
> That's not strictly accurate. This part of Flodoard's _Historia Remensis Ecclesiae_ is a summary of a letter of Archbishop Hincmar, and so 'Rainaldus' is coming straight from the source (a quick check of Hincmar's work does indeed show that he normally uses 'Rain-' for that particular radical, as in his letter to Bishop Hildebold of Soissons or his Opuscules concerning Hincmar of Laon). Flodoard seems to do this with his orthography in the _Historia_ - so, for instance, the name 'Adalgar' is 'Adalgarius' when he's copying from Archbishop Hincmar's letters and 'Adalgerius' when copying from Archbishop Fulk's.

Again, I fail to see how your opinion - however strongly it may be held
- can render my straightforward statement "not strictly accurate".
Flodoard wrote his history, not Hincmar. You and I, along with everyone
else, have no way of knowing exactly what orthography was used in
Hincmar's letter or even who had copied it in the version seen by
Flodoard (that was presumably not an autograph retrieved from the
recipient). My point was that the form "Rainaldus" was commonly used in
the mid-10th century, and Flodoard wrote his history in 948. If he had
an idiosyncratic preference for "Ragenold/Ragenald" for every Frankish
occurrence and was clear to his contemporaries (as if he thought of
himself as a journalist telling them more about people they already knew
without a thought for posterity), who could he not read "Rainaldo" and
turn this into "Ragenoldo"? Hincmar was not holy writ.

> However, bringing in the _Historia_ isn't relevant to what Flodoard does in the _Annals_, which is the text under discussion. There, he uses 'Ragen-' or 'Ragin-' for that particular radical (thus, 'Ragenarius', 'Ragenardus') in every case. With that in mind, within his annals he makes relevant distinctions between people who could be confused (e.g. 939, where he does distinguish between 'Hugh son of Richard', 'Hugh son of Robert', and 'Hugh the Cisalpine' because it's important to know which Hugh is which), and does not bother doing so between people whom none of his readers would confuse (so, for instance, he does not distinguish between 'Ralph bishop of Laon' [meaning Ralph I] and 'Ralph bishop of Laon' [meaning Ralph II]; or any of the different Pope Johns).

He certainly made such a distinction with the name Charles, adding
Constantine to distinguish one who is never elsewhere called by that
name - and yet "modern scholarship" has made a genealogical dog's
breakfast out of this.

>> Reims of course had long been a favoured target of Vikings, and Hincmar
>> died in 882 while taking refuge from an attack on the city. Louis IV
>> while residing there in 945 raised a force of Normans to ravage
>> Vermandois, so they can't have been based too far away at that time.
>
> Rheims had indeed been under attack from Vikings in the 880s, and that's about it. Not exactly a 'favoured target' for Northman fleets. As for Louis' Northman army in 945, at the time he had just taken control of Rouen, and was actively fighting Hugh the Great over which of them got to rule (what later became) Normandy. These particular Northmen come from his newly acquired Rouennais supporters and have no bearing on Ragenold's background.
>

Attacks in February 880, November 882 and the winter of 886-887 seem to
me evidence for interest in Reims that can be termed longstanding from
the perspective of the third decade in the next century. Where in the
course of four words ("collecto secum Nortmannorum exercitu") does
Flodoard clearly specify that this force used by Louis against
Vermandois had come across from Rouen?

> Let's bring this back to first principles. Being as even-handed as possible, here is the evidence for the Viking raider Rognvald being the same as Ragenold of Roucy:
>
> 1) They have the same name.
> 2) Flodoard does not explicitly say that they are different people.
>
> Against the identification:
>
> 1) They lived decades apart.
> 2) They operated in different areas of the kingdom.
> 3) No source says they are the same person. This is especially significant because:
> 4) Flodoard had a chip on his shoulder about Normans - thus, the Romance-speaking, Christian, born-in-Gaul Counts of Rouen William Longsword and Richard the Fearless are always identified as 'Northmen' - but Ragenold isn't.
>
> Quite frankly, points 3) and 4) against seems redundant when comparing points 1) and 2) against with point 1) for. Tenth-century figures can be arbitrarily combined or separated at leisure, but to do so on such a flimsy basis adds nothing useful or evidentially based to our understanding of the period.

Your understanding of Flodoard evidently does not lead to a full
understanding of my point in this exchange. I am not arguing for the
identification of the 920s Ragenold with the 940s namesake, but just
acknowledging that this is still a current and (although barely) tenable
view. For instance, interested SGM readers are likely to find it
acknowledged (in a slightly more positive way than I would put it) in
the Henry Project page for Renaud of Roucy here:
https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/ragen000.htm ("This
identification is possible, but uncertain.") I would be more inclined to
say "not impossible, but highly implausible".

However, my point in the context of your "no reason whatsoever to
connect the Viking leader Rognvald with Ragenold of Roucy" is to
distinguish between identifying two people as one man and connecting
them to each other.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 03-Dec-21 11:21 AM, Fraser McNair wrote:

> <snip>
>
>> I mentioned in an earlier post that under 925 Flodoard said King Rodulf
>> pursued Ragenold in Burgundy with soldiers from Reims - I don't suppose
>> he took them via the Loire valley. Viking raiders were not confined to
>> established bases.
>
> Ralph probably did lead them against a fleet based on the Loire, actually, or close enough to. The most obvious interpretation of Rognvald's activities in 924/5 is that the 'leader of the Northmen who dwelled on the Loire' raided Hugh the Great's lands from the Loire, then made peace with Hugh and William the Younger (south of the Loire) to go to Burgundy - i.e., continue down the Loire, from when he carried out the raids which ultimately led to the defeat at Chauont. Whether or not this supposition is right, though, the point is that there's no connection between Rognvald and Rheims at all.

This leaves out Ragenold's activities further north - in 923 after
entreaties from Charles the Simple, he crossed the Oise and was joined
by many Normans from Rouen ("Ragenoldus, princeps Nordmannorum qui in
fluvio Ligeri versabantur, Karoli frequentibus missis jampridem excitus,
Franciam trans Isaram, conjunctis sibi plurimus ex Rodomo,
depraedatur"). They ranged as far as Artois ("Ragenoldus exagitatus
furore in pagum Atrabatensem praedatum progreditur"). When defeated
there Ragenold and his followers withdrew hurriedly into fortresses they
had established and continued raiding as effectively as they could ("cum
quibus Ragenoldus ad munitionum suarum properat refugia, indeque quantas
potest exercere non desinit praedas et latrocinia"), including in the
Beauvaisis ("rex Rodulfus ... accitus de Burgundia venit ad Compendia
super Isaram; et audito quod Nordmanni pagum Belvacensem depraedabantur,
illo transiit"). Later in the year they were still raiding beyond the
Oise from Reims, and Franks were retaliating in territory they held
("Interea Nordmannis quosdam pagos nostros trans Isaram et nostratibus
eorum terram depraedantibus").

These activities were surely not all carried out from a base on the
Loire. In 925, while Ragenold was in Burgundy, Normans from Rouen
(presumably those who had tired of Rollo's settlement and accepted
Ragenold's command in 923) menaced a swathe of northern Francia
including the Beauvaisis, Amiénois and Noyon where they set fire to the
outskirts ("Ragenoldus cum suis Nordmannis Burgundiam depopulabatur ...
Nordmanni de Rodomo foedus quod olim pepigerant irrumpentes, pagum
Belvacensem atque Ambianensem depopulantur ... Nordmanni usque ad
Noviomagum praedatum veniunt, et suburbana succendunt"). If I had been
living in Reims at that time, with Viking pillagers active to my
south-east and north-west, I would have considered my city urgently in
danger from their leader Ragenold.

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

Yes I think Munier was convinced that because Bruno of Langres was
related to Bruno of Koln [great nephew?] , so Bruno of Eguisheim must have
been so named after his 'uncle' Bruno of Langres. Plus Heilwigs own name
recalled the saxon dynasty, but there might be any number of reasons they
chose these names. Also his father Hugo of Eguisheim was stated to be
the consobrinus or first cousin of Conrad II, because his mother Adelaide
was the sister of Hugos father. Do we know that for sure, or is it assumed
because Hugo is called consobrinus of Conrad?

The only thing I liked about Muniers ramblings was the idea that 'Louis Otto
count of Dagsburg' was named to honour Louis IV, Renaud's patron, and his
wife Gerberga who was sister of Otto the Great, and then her brother Archbishop
Bruno found him an obscure lordship in the Vosges. Disregarding the half-bro idea,
any such individual must have died by 991, but the whole scheme is obviously too flimsy.

Another line I found on these web geni sites was that Louis of Dagsburg was a son of
Rudolf I of Burgundy, who some think married a sister of Aethelstan based on a confusion
with a Louis of Aquitaine mentioned by William of Malmesbury. I think this has been
discussed here many times before, but I've never seen this Welf chap id with Louis of
Dagsburg! It seems a generation too early anyway. Another fantastical suggestion was
that he was a son perhaps illegitimate of Charles Constantine, but he didnt call either
of his sons Louis, and Dagsburg is a long way from Vienne.

mike

[Peter Stewart]

Bruno of Langres was a great-nephew of his namesake - his mother
Alberada was daughter of Bruno of Cologne's sister Gerberga.

The statement that Bruno of Eguisheim's (pope Leo IX's) father Hugo was
a cousin of emperor Konrad II is independently supported by Wipo, who in
'Gesta Chuonradi II imperatoris' called Hugo a kinsman of the emperor
("Ernestus dux Alamanniae, privignus imperatoris Chuonradi ... Alsatiam
provinciam vastavit et castella Hugonis comitis, qui erat consanguineus
imperatoris, desolavit.") The Vita also repeats a statement attributed
to Konrad himself acknowledging reciprocal affection with Bruno due to
their grandparental kinship ("consanguineus invicem affectus avitae
propinquitatis"). It is probable that Konrad's mother Adelheid was a
niece of Bruno's paternal grandmother, though this is not certain.

> The only thing I liked about Muniers ramblings was the idea that 'Louis Otto
> count of Dagsburg' was named to honour Louis IV, Renaud's patron, and his
> wife Gerberga who was sister of Otto the Great, and then her brother Archbishop
> Bruno found him an obscure lordship in the Vosges. Disregarding the half-bro idea,
> any such individual must have died by 991, but the whole scheme is obviously too flimsy.

The mindset that can ascribe in print any name that fits into a
predetermined scheme to family onomastics, and any name that doesn't to
honouring a patron or some such cop-out, always mystifies me. It would
be quicker and easier just to place an ad in the publication admitting
to being a fool with no scruples.

> Another line I found on these web geni sites was that Louis of Dagsburg was a son of
> Rudolf I of Burgundy, who some think married a sister of Aethelstan based on a confusion
> with a Louis of Aquitaine mentioned by William of Malmesbury. I think this has been
> discussed here many times before, but I've never seen this Welf chap id with Louis of
> Dagsburg! It seems a generation too early anyway. Another fantastical suggestion was
> that he was a son perhaps illegitimate of Charles Constantine, but he didnt call either
> of his sons Louis, and Dagsburg is a long way from Vienne.

The Welf Louis was count in the Thurgau in the 920s, not even remotely
possible as father of Heilwig of Dagsbourg who married ca 995. He does
however show that the name Louis was not a sacrosanct possession of
agnatic Carolingians, as some have misrepresented. Charles 'Constantine'
of Vienne is already the subject of genealogical nonsense and stubborn
denial of evidence for his maternal ancestry without adding more of this
to his offspring as well.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 03-Dec-21 10:11 PM, Fraser McNair wrote:

<snip>

>> Unless you consider that the
>> first Ragenold was of such major concern throughout Francia that men
>> from anywhere might be called on to chase him down and therefore he
>> might be expected to show up in sources with a broader or different
>> purview than Flodoard's written at Reims
>
> Yes, explicitly so: later in 925, Ralph issued the general call-out of the kingdom's army. This makes sense: at this point Rognvald is a threat to the kingdom's security who has menaced a fair chunk of the realm, including Artois, Neustria and Burgundy - but not the area around Rheims.
>
> As for expecting him to show up in other contemporary sources - it would be remarkable if he did, given Flodoard is the _only_ contemporary narrative from the West Frankish kingdom during these decades. In terms of near contemporary sources, though, he does actually appear in the _Miracula Sancti Benedicti_ of Aimoin of Fleury, where he seems to have left a memory as threatening as Flodoard shows him to have been at the time.

I forgot to comment on this shift from what I had written - by "might be
expected to show up in sources with a broader or different purview" I
did not mean, and should not be represented as implying, "other
contemporary sources".

Under 921 Flodoard reported that after a failed siege of five months a
devastated Brittany was ceded by Robert (later king) along with the
Nantais to the Vikings established on the Loire, who were starting to
convert to Christianity ("Rotbertus comes Nordmannos qui Ligerim fluvium
occupaverant per quinque menses obsedit ... Britanniam ipsis, quam
vastaverant, cum Namnetico pago concessit; quique fidem Xρisti coeperunt
suscipere"). For one instance to my point, the chronicle of Nantes
(compiled in the mid-11th century from earlier sources) reports on the
Viking incursion but does not mention Ragenold. From his Frankish name
(Rainaldus in the miracles of St Benedict, Ragenoldus in Flodoard) he
was presumably one of the converts.

It is notable that the Viking raiders seem to have left the area not
many years afterwards, so that following Alan II's return in 936 they no
longer prevented reestablishment of Breton government and reassertion of
rights in the Nantais. These Vikings obviously did not vanish into thin
air - some probably joined the Normans of Rouen, who were looking for
new recruits from Scandinavia according (for the little his say-so is
worth) to Dudo of Saint-Quentin. Others may have settled elsewhere in
northern Francia, although extant evidence is not directly helpful for
this supposition. Flodoard reported that the break-out across the Oise
under Ragenold occurred after he had not been given lands as he wanted
in Francia, and however this demand came to be settled after 925
(whether or not Ragenold himself was still living) his followers
presumably did not all take to their boats and go home to Scandinavia.
Archbishop Seulf of Reims had led Frankish forces against them and their
reinforcements from Rouen (so that soldiery from Reims had already
joined the campaign before Raoul took some off to Burgundy), along with
Heribert II of Vermandois, and there was an obvious motive to settle any
of Ragenold's followers away from the Loire and distant enough from
Rouen that they could not quickly coalesce with Normans from there in
future. Somewhere such as Roucy, not far from Reims in the direction of
Heribert's power base in Saint-Quentin, would seem to be a likely
locality, especially given that their fellow Frankish magnates had
already given up much more territory to the west and south-west when
called on.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I emailed Settipani about this and he said those conjectured were mentioned in a mere footnote and that he noted the author behind them was otherwise fanciful and had to be taken with all reservations. What author is that?

[Peter Stewart]

Are you sure he understood your question and actually meant "a mere
footnote"? Even if trying to brush off an unwelcome query, what kind of
historian could seriously say such a thing or suppose it made any
difference where on the page in his own work the lapse I posted about
was printed?

The author in question who is "otherwise fanciful" is A.
(Lieutenant-colonel) Larose, but he is definitely NOT responsible in any
way for Settipani's own ideas - in the main text of p. 162, about Drogo
of Champagne's son Arnulf, he wrote: "Peut-être laissa-t-il une
posterérité fondue dans l'aristocratie lorraine?". To this in note 120
on the same page he added the first lapse I meant: "Ce qui pourrait le
faire croire c'est la mention dans une bulle du pape Léon IX de son
ancêtre Arnulf et de ses parents" - NB this is before he noted Larose's
"généalogie absolument fantaisiste" making Drogo the direct ancestor of
Leo IX. Settipani then added another credulous lapse by suggesting:
"Dans cette hypothèse, on pourrait sous toute réserve rattacher à cette
souche le comte Drogo connu en 753 et 762 ..., Hugo, comte de
Chaumonotis (c. 910), issu des Arnulfiens [mais non explicitement des
Carolingiens!], père du comte Arnulf et de l'évêque Odalric de Reims (†
969)".

The sources for both Leo IX's alleged ancestry claim and for deriving
Hugo of Chaumontois from the Arnulfians are forgeries. Omitting any
mention of that, in a footnote or anywhere else, needs explicitly
admitting and correcting by a self-respecting researcher.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Settipani might not have been aware they were forgeries at the time.

[jean-luc soler]

Surely he is reading soc.gen.medieval

JL

[Peter Stewart]

Of course he wasn't aware of this, Paulo - are you posting in your sleep?

Failing to realise that the documents with ancestral claims regarding
Hugo of Chaumontois and Pope Leo IX were forgeries from late-11th and
early 12th centuries respectively is precisely the lapse I meant.

There is no suggestion that Settipani deliberately withheld this
information from readers, but rather that he ventured hazy speculation
about a possible descent from Drogo of Champagne without properly
assessing the flawed evidence behind it.

I can only assume that he did not follow what you were emailing him
about if his response implied that Larose's fantasy was somehow at issue
and not his own conjecture.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I posted right after leaving bed. I am busy recently. Anyways, Settipani said he was busy and did not check the thread.