The Christian world in 1187

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Demetrios
Heh, to keep it simple they should probably just be Slask-Wroclaw and Pomorze-Gdansk. Much easier that way, and it follows the conventions in other languages.

It doesn't make sense.

If anything, if we want to keep the English grammar, it should be "Wroclaw Slask" and "Gdansk Pomorze" as in English the adjective form of a noun goes before a noun.

Pomorze-Gdansk would be translateable into Polish as "Gdansk Pomorski", not "Pomorze Gdanskie".

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Martinus
It doesn't make sense.

If anything, if we want to keep the English grammar, it should be "Wroclaw Slask" and "Gdansk Pomorze" as in English the adjective form of a noun goes before a noun.

But not in the case of country names in this situation. In English, the names of fragmented states use the name of the original state first, followed by the name of the fragment after a hyphen: Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or Hesse-Kassel, not Coburg-Gotha-Saxe or Kassel-Hesse. That's the conventional usage in English, French, German, and presumably other Western European languages, and thus to anyone west of Poland, the use of Slask-Wroclaw would seem perfectly natural...

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Demetrios
The main thing that is being forgotten here is that the game focuses on dynasties instead of states. Eleanor was the still-living representative of a dynasty which were the legitimate rulers of Aquataine, and the Plantagenets only derived their claims through her. Had all the descendents of Henry and Eleanor died without heirs (unlikely as that might seem, although it could have happened), England would have no claim on Aquataine, as the two states would be inherited by different lines (Aquataine presumably by the descendants of Eleanor's and Louis's daughters, while I tremble to think of the anarchy that would ensue in England if all the descendants of Henry II were to die heirless )

Yes, dynasties - and at the time of 1187 the Plantagenet dynasty was ruling Aquataine and as far as I know (which, to be sure is not very far in this matter) neither Eleanor nor Richard nor any other dynast made any external treaties etc. in the name of Aquataine, save only Henry himself with Aquataine as part of England.

Aquataine in 1187 was not powerful (except as Richard was powerful) nor soverign. And those two were (who knows now?) the two main considerations to be playable. Richard as a playable (independent) duke? Possible - but there are many more dynasties which should be playable before Richard (as can be attested by the posts in this thread).

Certainly there would have been a big hassle had Henry and Eleanor died childless. Phillip II would have jumped in and snatched up Aquataine and Poitiou etc. - or at least would have tried to do so. Doesn't mean that Aquataine should be playable in 1187 though.

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by Demetrios
But not in the case of country names in this situation. In English, the names of fragmented states use the name of the original state first, followed by the name of the fragment after a hyphen: Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or Hesse-Kassel, not Coburg-Gotha-Saxe or Kassel-Hesse. That's the conventional usage in English, French, German, and presumably other Western European languages, and thus to anyone west of Poland, the use of Slask-Wroclaw would seem perfectly natural...

I think in German you could say something of Breslauer Schlesien or Danziger Pommern and there wouldn't be any issue. I wonder how 'English' would be something like Wroclawian Silesia and Gdanskian Pommerania

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Originally posted by Sonny
Regardless of how the people of Aquataine loved their Duchess, the rest of the world saw Aquataine as a part of England (o.k. France never really liked the idea). Eleanor was Duchess Emeritus (or whatever you call a retired duchess) because not only was she still imprisoned in 1187 but Richard was the Duke since 1168(?) and ruled the duchy. Even though he and his dad had some troubles, I don't think he ever condsidered Aquataine anything other than an English posession.

Hmm...I think you've got the emphasis the other way around. I think in the perspective of the time, England was an Angevin/Aquitanian possession. Richard spent a whole four months in England throughout the duration of his life (and no, he was not always crusading).

On another point: Richard was indeed given his mother's possessions (Aquitaine, Poitou, etc.) by the partition of Montmirail in 1169, but as far as I know, did not to homage for them then (there were some other issues pending with the French king). So, technically, he wasn't quite Duke of Aquitaine yet, although he was treated as such by Aquitainian barons. Anyway, all this was revoked 1183 by Henry II upon the death of Young King Henry, as the lands would have to re-apporitioned. Richard remained just a prince until 1188, when, at Bonmoulins, he broke with daddy and did homage to the French king for Aquitaine, Anjou & Normandy.

BTW, at Richard's death in 1199, John was invested with Normandy and Anjou but not Aquitaine. Old Eleanor came out of retirement and resumed her role as reigning Duchess of Aquitaine. That's why, having successfully stripped John of his French domains in 1203, Philip II didn't venture into Aquitaine. Only after Eleanor's death in 1204, did he (try to) take possession of them.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Originally posted by Kasperus
I think in German you could say something of Breslauer Schlesien or Danziger Pommern and there wouldn't be any issue. I wonder how 'English' would be something like Wroclawian Silesia and Gdanskian Pommerania

I think he was referring to dynasty names. In that case, he was correct in how German dynasty names are spelled.

 

[Drakken]

Originally posted by Sonny
Eleanor was Duchess Emeritus (or whatever you call a retired duchess)

Duchess dowager.

D.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Abdul Goatherd
Hmm...I think you've got the emphasis the other way around. I think in the perspective of the time, England was an Angevin/Aquitanian possession. Richard spent a whole four months in England throughout the duration of his life (and no, he was not always crusading).

On another point: Richard was indeed given his mother's possessions (Aquitaine, Poitou, etc.) by the partition of Montmirail in 1169, but as far as I know, did not to homage for them then (there were some other issues pending with the French king). So, technically, he wasn't quite Duke of Aquitaine yet, although he was treated as such by Aquitainian barons. Anyway, all this was revoked 1183 by Henry II upon the death of Young King Henry, as the lands would have to re-apporitioned. Richard remained just a prince until 1188, when, at Bonmoulins, he broke with daddy and did homage to the French king for Aquitaine, Anjou & Normandy.

BTW, at Richard's death in 1199, John was invested with Normandy and Anjou but not Aquitaine. Old Eleanor came out of retirement and resumed her role as reigning Duchess of Aquitaine. That's why, having successfully stripped John of his French domains in 1203, Philip II didn't venture into Aquitaine. Only after Eleanor's death in 1204, did he (try to) take possession of them.

Accordingly if Richard was not Duke of Aquataine and Eleanor was imprisoned then the duchy would be a part of Henry's domain and not independent.
In 1187 Aquataine was nowhere near independent nor was it powerful enough to be considered a playable Christian dynasty.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Tambourmajor
I think he was referring to dynasty names. In that case, he was correct in how German dynasty names are spelled.

Dyansty and state names, actually

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Abdul Goatherd
Alfonso II of Aragon is NOT Alfonso II of Provence. This seems a bit more complicated as there are three titles at play (Count of Barcelona, King of Aragon, Count of Provence). From what I can figure out by googling:

c.1113 Count Raymond Berengar III of Barcelona marries Countess Dulcia I of Provence.

1130 Dulcia dies. 1131 husband dies. Sons divide the lands: eldest takes up title Raymond Berengar IV of Barcelona, younger becomes Berengar Raymond I of Provence (note that name reversal).

1137 RB IV of Barcelona marries Queen Petronilla of Aragon.

1141 BR I of Provence dies. His son takes up title as RB III of Provence.

1161 Death of RB IV of Barcelona. Son ascends as Alfonso I of Barcelona (note: Petronilla still queen of Aragon).

1163 Petronilla abdicates in favor of son Alfonso I of Barcelona, who ascends as Alfonso II of Araon.

1166 RB III of Provence dies. His daughter ascends as Countess Dulcia II of Provence.

1167 Dulcia II of Provence abdicates her throne in favor of cousin Raymond Berengar (Alfonso's brother) who ascends as RB IV of Provence. Alfonso's other brother (Sancho) is given the title of Count of Roussillon.

1181 RB IV of Provence dies. NOW Alfonso of Aragon-Barcelona takes up the title as "Alfonso I of Provence".

1185 Bored of Provence, Alfonso I of Barcelona/II of Aragon/I of Provence hands that fief over to his younger son, who ascends as Alfonso II of Provence.

1196 Alfonso I of Barcelona/II of Aragon dies. Those domains pass on to his other, elder son, who ascends as Peter II of Aragon. (Barcelona is extinguished as a separate entity now, I think.) The younger son continues on as Alfonso II of Provence.

To finalize:

1209 Alfonso II of Provence dies. His son ascends as Raymond Berengar V of Provence (& thereafter (1246) to daughter Beatrice who marries Charles of Anjou, etc.)

1213 Peter II of Aragon dies. His son ascends as James I of Aragon (and thereafter (1276) to Peter III, etc.).

OK, just got back from researching a bit on the subject, and it looks like Abdul got this pretty much correctly here, although, maddeningly, the status of R-B IV and Alphonse II of Provence during the lifetime of Alfonso II of Aragon/Barcelona is unclear, whether they were full-fledged Counts or merely just governors. Ths status of Sancho from 1181 - 1185 seems to be pretty clear - he was governor and not a count. However, R-B IV seems to have been more than a governor (he gets numbered in the list of Counts of Provence), and it's not up for debate that Alphonse II was Count after his father's death.

The problem here boils down to this: At what date did Alphonse II become a full-fledged Count of Provence? Was he merely a governor until his father's death or did he have power before that point? From what I've found, Alphonse II was only born around 1182, so, even if Count, would have been a minor. And I've seen later dates (1192, for example), for his appointment as Count/governor/whatever, muddling the picture even more...

What a mess!

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Sonny
Certainly there would have been a big hassle had Henry and Eleanor died childless. Phillip II would have jumped in and snatched up Aquataine and Poitiou etc. - or at least would have tried to do so. Doesn't mean that Aquataine should be playable in 1187 though.

Hassle doesn't begin to cover the mess that would have ensued. Aquataine would have had a clear heir - the Count of Champagne, as the grandson of Eleanor by her first marriage and thus the son of the half-sister of Philip of France. Technically the heiress to Anjou would have been Queen Sybilla of Jerusalem (as the granddaughter of Fulk V of Anjou), but it's hard to see how her claim could have been pressed, so it's more likely that Count Philip of Flanders, as the son of the daughter of Fulk V, would have made his claim. And there is the rub - since England and Normandy would have had no clear heir, the houses of Flanders and Champagne would have again been able to make strong claims - Flanders in the form of Philip's neice Ida, Countess of Boulogne, who was the only living descendant (the granddaughter) of King Stephen, and Champgne in the person of the Count himself, also through his descent from the Conqueror's daughter Adela (though from the older brother of King Stephen). How exactly King Philip would have (or even could have) resolved this gigantic conflict between two of his most poweful vassals would make for a very interesting "what-if" story, would it not?

 

[Tunch Khan]

Originally posted by Havard

Oh, and Tuna: Do we know anything about the name of the Cuman leaders around this time?

Although the question was not directly asked to me, i found the subject interesting and made a small research.


"It is shown in papal documents that, young King BôV, who at the time was governing Transylvania, went to the land of the Cumans, accompanied by Robert the Archbishop of Esztergom. During this visit the Chieftain of the Cumans, Borics, and 15,000 of his followers converted to Christianity. Their persons and freedom was guaranteed by a solemn letter from Pope Gregory IX and by a Golden Bull from the young King BôV. Pope Gregory X, upon learning that there were people living in Moldavia who called themselves Wallachians and who, together with Csᮧngarians living in the same area, were converted by Greek Orthodox ?False Bishops (pseudoepiscopi), instructed the Catholic Bishop, Theodoric, to appoint a suitable Vicar from the people, who were ready to return to the fold of the Catholic Church."

A XVIth Century Turkish traveler, Seyh Al, who visited Hungary in 1558 wrote that they dressed in the Tatar fashion and that many of them were speaking the Tatar language. (The Osman-Turks called all Turkish people speaking a different language Tatars.) It is evident that the traveler spoke of the Cumanian dress and language.

Some Cumanian monarch names are as follows:

Kura Khan (972)
Bolus Khan (1048)
Saru Khan (1060-?)
Sokal Khan (1061-1068)
Asep Khan (1068-1082)
Tugor Khan (? - 1096)
Bonyak Khan (1091-1167)
Prince Kitan Khan (1095 assassinated by Kiev Grand Knyaz Vladimir Monomah
Prince Itlar Khan (1095 assassinated by Kiev Grand Knyaz Vladimir Monomah
Otrok Khan (1117?) of North Caucasia Cumans
Sercan Khan (1117?) of Don Kumans
Aybek Khan (? - 1120) poisoned by Bulgarians
Sotan Khan (1120-?)
Begluk Khan (?-1150's)
Kozel Khan (?-1160's)
Kipchak Khan (1167-1172)
Konchak Khan (1172-1194)
Prince Gzak Khan (c.1184)
Prince Kobyak Khan(?-1184) dies in battle vs. Kievan Grand Knyaz Svyatoslav
Kuntuvdi Khan (1194-?)
Bortch Khan (1222-1230's) #Borics#
Kuthen Khan (1202-1240)
Erszebet Princess Von Kumans (later Queen of Hungary) #Elizabeth#
Miss Princess Von Kumans
Anna Princess Von Kumans
Prince Ladislas IV (later King of Hungary)

 

[unmerged(15867)]

Originally posted by Kasperus
I'm sure that at least the opponents of the Empire did recognize that status indeed. But in any way what accounted to Boleslaw did not account at all to Casimir II. Casimir did never claim a royal title - in fact he never even really claimed to be the ruler of all Poland (like he did not try really hard to expulse Mieszko from Wielkopolska). In this he wouldn't dare thus to provoke the emperor but he wouldn't even have support from the pope here as he did after all break the rule of Boleslaw's testamant that the popes and emperors were both guaranteeing. [/B]

Oh yes: After 1150 or so Poland for the very first time had to resign from unusual large part of independence (Well, other ones were all short-lived).

I had "Three chroiniclers" by Jasienica, with fragments from Thietmar, Gall Anonim and Kadlubek. Unfortunately, only in Polish, i wish i had access to latin originals.

Anyway, Kadlubek consequently uses "king" when referring to princes and "kingdom" when writing about POland. Gall Anonim also wrotes "kingdom" about whole Poland. If "king" is equivalent to latin "rex" and kingdom to latin "regnum", it would seem that Poland - at least in Poland - was considered kingdom, not just loose string of duchies. Thietmar also wrotes that Boleslav before coronation was "quasi king", as he usurped the title... It could be possible that also other Polish princes were calling themselves kings in similar matter.

On other hand, what we need here is specialist from Medieval terminology to explain, whether "regnum" was used eclusively to denote kingdom, or just as general noun for large, sovereign states.

Update on Boleslav the Brave issue: I found that we know that he asked pope for the crown, but the pope's answer is not to found; therefore, judging from reaction of pope to Boleslav coronation and his policy in that matter it is generally agreed that he happily blessed Boleslav's plans.

 

[unmerged(436)]

For the Irish chieftains and kings this site is good.

http://students.ist.psu.edu/~rpm164/search/ulskings.htm

without a province breakdown it's hard to judge rulers, but you should be able to do that with the province information

Paul.

 

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Kasperus
I think in German you could say something of Breslauer Schlesien or Danziger Pommern and there wouldn't be any issue. I wonder how 'English' would be something like Wroclawian Silesia and Gdanskian Pommerania

In order to make it properly "English", you would have to take both words, mispell them and conjugate in a wrong way (e.g. Wrclewianski Slaska). At least that's a traditional way American and Korean game designers do that.

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by Martinus
In order to make it properly "English", you would have to take both words, mispell them and conjugate in a wrong way (e.g. Wrclewianski Slaska). At least that's a traditional way American and Korean game designers do that.

In that case our aid isn't needeed as I'm sure that paradox is able to misspell all Polish names well enough by themselves

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by szopen76
Oh yes: After 1150 or so Poland for the very first time had to resign from unusual large part of independence (Well, other ones were all short-lived).

I had "Three chroiniclers" by Jasienica, with fragments from Thietmar, Gall Anonim and Kadlubek. Unfortunately, only in Polish, i wish i had access to latin originals.

Anyway, Kadlubek consequently uses "king" when referring to princes and "kingdom" when writing about POland. Gall Anonim also wrotes "kingdom" about whole Poland. If "king" is equivalent to latin "rex" and kingdom to latin "regnum", it would seem that Poland - at least in Poland - was considered kingdom, not just loose string of duchies. Thietmar also wrotes that Boleslav before coronation was "quasi king", as he usurped the title... It could be possible that also other Polish princes were calling themselves kings in similar matter.

On other hand, what we need here is specialist from Medieval terminology to explain, whether "regnum" was used eclusively to denote kingdom, or just as general noun for large, sovereign states.

Update on Boleslav the Brave issue: I found that we know that he asked pope for the crown, but the pope's answer is not to found; therefore, judging from reaction of pope to Boleslav coronation and his policy in that matter it is generally agreed that he happily blessed Boleslav's plans.

Gall Anonim certainly did not refer to the Poland after Boleslaw Krzywousty (he diied presumably before 1138) so he did refer to one country so that's not a surprise. I have read also a Polish translation of that chonicler but cannot recall now that I paid attention to that... there is an online version somewhere though iirc. In any way for all the medieval chronicles, how much authentic, it is obvious that these are not very reliable. Chronicles like Gall Anonims or Kadlubeks were meant to glorify the current ruler and both were certainly not restraining themselves in 'forgetting' to put things that were less glorious... as I recall Gall Anonim has no good word to say about Wladyslaw Herman for example while the Boleslaws are more than saints... My hypothesis is that Gall Anonims mayor aim is to show that the only thing that Boleslaws misses what he does deserve is the royal crown, therefor he calls Poland a kingdom. Now I do wonder how much Boleslaw believed that chronicles himself
As to Kadlubek the story is somewhat different as Kadlubek did live after 1138 so he saw a partitioned Poland. Now Kadlubek as such is also known for making up a lot and basing his story just as much on facts as on hearsay, legends, foreign mithology and foreign lives of saints doesn't make his work very reliable - it was iirc Kadlubek who first made up a Polish history from some 500 including all kind of made up monarchs from that date... So also for Kadlubek applies that he would be likely to overglorify the history or to just like Gall Anonim to look back and derive his idea of an united, independant and royal Poland from its earlier history... now this is again just my hypothesis
I do wonder what the German chronicles have to say over this btw. If they also make Poland of Kazimierz Sprawiedliwy a kingdom and Kazimeirz a king then I give it up

 

[unmerged(15867)]

Originally posted by Kasperus
I do wonder what the German chronicles have to say over this btw. If they also make Poland of Kazimierz Sprawiedliwy a kingdom and Kazimeirz a king then I give it up

I have no access to German chronicles. Definetely they did recognize Mieszko II title and Boleslav's Chrobry, but action of other emperor clearly show that they considered Poland their fief... And i suspect similar attitudes one may find in contemporary chronicles.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Demetrios
.............. How exactly King Philip would have (or even could have) resolved this gigantic conflict between two of his most poweful vassals would make for a very interesting "what-if" story, would it not?

Indeed! A delightful power struggle.

 

[unmerged(11610)]

Originally posted by Eochaid
As for France:

Kingdom of France - Philip II Augustus
(County of Toulouse - Raymond V)?
(County of Flanders - Philip)?
(County of Bretagne - Arthur I Anjou)?

<cut>

Arthur I
Best title: Duke of Brittany
Current location: Irrelevant
Was born: April the 30th 1187
Age to game start: 0
Family status: Single
Father: Geoffroy Plantagenêt
Mother: Constance of Brittany

Footnote "Brittany":
Artur I was the posthume son of Geoffroy and never ruled. The duchy was held by the English King and Artur died in 1203 after being captured in battle while attempting (with Philippe Auguste's support) to regain his estates.

Like Eochaid said and...

Arthur I of Britanny was son of Geoffrey of Plantagenet (4th son of king Henry II). Geoffrey died after tournament accidents some months before Arthur's birth; his mother was Constance (1161-1201), heiress to the county of Britanny. 1189 Constance married Ranulf III, Earl of Chester (1170-1232). By marrige this makes Ranulf III also Count of Britanny. Contance and Ranulf III marrige was not a success and being finally dissolved in 1199. So, in 1187 Constance is Countess of Britanny and after 1189 Ranulf III is the ruler.

BTW, Britanny should be part of Angevin empire (England), right?

Source book: Early Medieval England 1066-1272 by Cristopher Tyerman