The Most Ancient Dynasties of CK2

[classicist]

6300 years hmy:? Is this even possible?

The minimalistic, source critical response would be no. Indian traditions are very skilled in finding connections to Vedic ethnonyms. In essence it's nothing different from the European weaving of national origins, except perhaps that the ostensibly unbroken cultural tradition of India encourages and validifies such claims in a more effective way. As to the real connections with several millennia old group names, later (though still sometimes quite old) invented connections are always a factor: for example, no-one except the fringe-theorist who used to terrorize the Wikipedia pages on Kamboja (the North-Indian group with literary mentions in Mahabharata) would argue that there is any real connection between these Kamboja and the term Cambodia - the latter was demonstrably adopted by a dynasty that was entirely unconnected both in time and space.

 

[unmerged(49637)]

Actually the Royal Houses of Europe (Charles V etc...) Link to Byzantine Dynasties some of which link to certain Roman Gens which date back prior to 300BC

I dont know of any modern day links with the Julia gens The first member of the Gens shows up circa 550 BC and the last member of the gens was listed as active in the 7th Century AD.

If you believe the Portugese line of Descent from Antiquity that line links in with the Anicia Gens which starts around 330 B.C.

The Doukas Claimed descent from a cousin of Constantine the Great who himself claimed Claudius II and Quintillus as ancestors.

The Phokas Claimed descent from the gens Fabia who are documented to circa 500 BC By the way... The Fabii claimed descent from Hercules..

So really there are two ways of looking at this.

1. Everyone is lying, and there was no DNA test back in the day so we really cant even be sure that the legal father is the biological father.

2. Even if everyone is lying and sleeping around. Regional DNA pools stay mostly static. Constantine may not have been the grandson of one of Claudius II's nieces, but they were from the same general region, and the region was mostly stable going back 200 years. (8 Breeding Generations) Which would give Constantine's Great Great Aunt's parent and Claudius II 256 Ancestors each. If we assume 100,000 In the region.

Turns out theres roughly a 65% chance of them sharing an ancestor at that level (260% Chance at the 9th Generation, and a 16% chance at the 7th Generation).
However if they were aware of being from the same city (10,000 Population) Then There is a 160% chance at Generation 7, a 40% Chance at Generation 6 and 10% chance at Generation 5 (3x Great, 125 Years).

Now since the generations are shifted from Constantine to Claudius II.
The chance that they Constantine and Claudius share an ancestor in a 100k population is 65% at Claudius II's Generation 7, and in a 10k population it is 40% at Claudius's Generation 5. (Roughly 1% Chance that Claudius II and Constantine I share Claudius II's Great Grandparent).

Now when you consider that they both came from military backgrounds we cut the potential ancestors even more.

So in short yes, the genealogy of our ancestors may be Mistaken, Best Guess, Fraudulent etc... But they did try to make links to historical characters reasonable. Because in the end, if someone in Europe in 1 AD has descendants living today, there is a much greater than 99.9999% chance he is at least 40 of my ancestors.

But as a final point, in a dynasty game like Ck II.
It doesnt matter if Edward II was really descended from Charlemagne, It doesnt matter if Charlemagne's bastard had a different father. All that matters is that they used these links to bolster their legitimacy which in the end is all a cynical bunch of tyrants were interested in anyway, the proof that they were somehow more right to rule than those mud eating savages.

 

[Qantrix]

The article says that roughly 21 % of the male population in northwestern share a common, male, ancestor, with the percentages growing lower when you move south - we're probably all descended from him by now through females, but what's interesting is that it's apparantly just through paternal lines - it's a pretty good indicator that it was someone important, although not entirely conclusive proof..

The problem is that if you go back that many generations in history the number of ancestors you have is over a trillion. It's the same reason that all people in Western Europe are descended from Charlemagne - and everybody else alive around then who had a decent amount of children.

 

[riadach]

The problem is that if you go back that many generations in history the number of ancestors you have is over a trillion. It's the same reason that all people in Western Europe are descended from Charlemagne - and everybody else alive around then who had a decent amount of children.

The number of ancestors in the male line is not a trillion though. The study was done of genes on the y chromosome only.

 

[A_Dane]

The problem is that if you go back that many generations in history the number of ancestors you have is over a trillion. It's the same reason that all people in Western Europe are descended from Charlemagne - and everybody else alive around then who had a decent amount of children.

Yes ofcourse, which is why it's specifically looking at male line of descend (I'm not entirely sure if it says so outright, but I suppouse that's the point, as it'd otheriwse be s completely moot point, because of the reason you mentioned). It's interesting to see that there might actually something to the whole story of Niall and the dynasty he spawned. - It dosn't conclusively prove anything, but it leads more credence to the sories in any case. - Not that it really matters these days

 

[steelworker]

The problem is that if you go back that many generations in history the number of ancestors you have is over a trillion. It's the same reason that all people in Western Europe are descended from Charlemagne - and everybody else alive around then who had a decent amount of children.

The majority of Western Europeans are related to, not descended from, Charlemagne. Crucial difference.

 

[volseraph]

Woah woah woah there, Sassanid nobles fled to China? I am going to need a sauce on that. That is almost as awesome as the fabled lost legions that supposedly did all kinds of crazy badass things, like take up service as mercenaries for China, and had villages that supposedly are filled with their genetic decedents.

Meet Peroz III, pretender Shahenshah of Persia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peroz_III He's fairly well documented for the period.

(It's also worth noting a lot of Zoroastrian Persians took refuge in India.)

 

[unmerged(49637)]

The majority of Western Europeans are related to, not descended from, Charlemagne. Crucial difference.

Nope, descended from.

Probably all of Europe and much of the Near East.

His descendants have ruled most of Europe.

Here is how it works.

He had at least 20 known children (Discounting a few rumbles in the hay with some servant prior to his kingship)
Louis the Pious Had 10 Children and 40 Grand Children (ironically there are only 10 other Documented Great Grandchildren of Charlemagne's Line).

This is not totally surprising because only 7 out of his 10 children that were legal survived to adulthood.

They went on to marry into every noble house of Europe quite quickly.

So you have a king, has 3 sons 1 daghter and a bastard.
Daughter gets married off to a count, son 1 gets kingship, Son 2 and 3 become minor nobles. Bastard joins the Army.
Minor nobles have kids, they become knights, Knights have kids who become nobodies.

Etc...

So yes, unless the person in Western Europe's Ancestors were from a non-European Country, then their ancestor was Charlemagne.

Statistically (In reference to Joseph Chang of Yale's Statistics)
The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.

From Genetics.
“A genetic survey concludes that all Europeans living today are related to the same set of ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago. And you wouldn’t have to go back much further to find that everyone in the world is related to each other.

 

[riadach]

Nope, descended from.

Probably all of Europe and much of the Near East.

His descendants have ruled most of Europe.

Here is how it works.

He had at least 20 known children (Discounting a few rumbles in the hay with some servant prior to his kingship)
Louis the Pious Had 10 Children and 40 Grand Children (ironically there are only 10 other Documented Great Grandchildren of Charlemagne's Line).

This is not totally surprising because only 7 out of his 10 children that were legal survived to adulthood.

They went on to marry into every noble house of Europe quite quickly.

So you have a king, has 3 sons 1 daghter and a bastard.
Daughter gets married off to a count, son 1 gets kingship, Son 2 and 3 become minor nobles. Bastard joins the Army.
Minor nobles have kids, they become knights, Knights have kids who become nobodies.

Etc...

So yes, unless the person in Western Europe's Ancestors were from a non-European Country, then their ancestor was Charlemagne.

Statistically (In reference to Joseph Chang of Yale's Statistics)
The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.

From Genetics.
“A genetic survey concludes that all Europeans living today are related to the same set of ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago. And you wouldn’t have to go back much further to find that everyone in the world is related to each other.

The difference is, that although most of Europe is descended (statistically) from Charlemagne, only a fraction would share his y chromosome.

 

[unmerged(49637)]

The difference is, that although most of Europe is descended (statistically) from Charlemagne, only a fraction would share his y chromosome.

Agreed, Possibly no one.

Would need to be a M->M->M->M line.

Every person has a MMMMM Line and a FFFFFF Line, but that line is only 1 person wide each. You have the same number of Male Line ancestors in 1600 AD as you do in 1300 BC.

In the ONeill case, it is supposed that in 400 AD there were about 100-150 Tribes (40-60 people each minimum) So at a Minimum we are talking 9,000 people in the area.

If a King has 12 Sons (not impossible with concubinage) And they all have a high % of Sons. Then they statistically flood the area. The combination of Pagan concubinage and raiding would imply that each of the 12 sons would have a warband and concubines.

 

[DominusNovus]

In all fairness, every modern person of European descent is descended from virtually every European living 1200 years ago, statistically speaking. So, while everyone around is almost certainly descended from Charlemagne, they're also descended from the guy shoveling out the stables in his palace, too.

 

[riadach]

Agreed, Possibly no one.

Would need to be a M->M->M->M line.

Every person has a MMMMM Line and a FFFFFF Line, but that line is only 1 person wide each. You have the same number of Male Line ancestors in 1600 AD as you do in 1300 BC.

In the ONeill case, it is supposed that in 400 AD there were about 100-150 Tribes (40-60 people each minimum) So at a Minimum we are talking 9,000 people in the area.

You're probably talking about 3,000 per tribe so upwards of 500,000 people. When they were later converted to administrative divisions, they were termed trícha cét, or thirty hundreds. Some say this was a levy, others a population assessment. The later is most likely with the céad being equivalent of a baile, which had (on average) five noble households. With dependants or local peasants it's not unbelievable that each of these units had a hundred in them (hence the name).

 

[Jaywebbs]

Katoch, that was the ancient Indian one.

Katoch are not in the game though.

 

[Jaywebbs]

Agreed, Possibly no one.

Doubt it. While a direct male line from Charlemagne himself may be non-existent. A direct Male line could still be possible from one of his ancestors or even brothers.

 

[riadach]

Doubt it. While a direct male line from Charlemagne himself may be non-existent. A direct Male line could still be possible from one of his ancestors or even brothers.

Indeed.

What's unique about Niall's case, is that we have (supposed) direct male line descendants for his father, and brothers. If the genealogies are correct, and the genetics seem to pan out, technically we are able to isolate those genes that are peculiar to Niall himself.

 

[unmerged(49637)]

You're probably talking about 3,000 per tribe so upwards of 500,000 people. When they were later converted to administrative divisions, they were termed trícha cét, or thirty hundreds. Some say this was a levy, others a population assessment. The later is most likely with the céad being equivalent of a baile, which had (on average) five noble households. With dependants or local peasants it's not unbelievable that each of these units had a hundred in them (hence the name).

500k would be far too much in 400 AD
You are talking about much later time periods.
From the 400 AD era there were 100-150 Kings with the smallest king ruling over a Tribal band of 40-60 people each (Aka 9,000 is the minimum Many of the kings ruled over much more than a single extended household.)

Remember 400 AD is only 100 years after the Irish Dark ages. Grain farming is estimated to have become common around 200 AD.

I would put a guess (a total 100% guess) as 1 AD population of Ireland ~200k with a 25% drop in the Irish Dark Ages c 250 AD (As opposed to the 50% drop of the Romano British Dark Ages). Then a small gain back.

~180-250k around 400AD.
The portion of northern Ireland being very roughly 25% of that total. 45k-60k Pop in nortern ireland or 23k-30k Males.
Noting that due to a high death from pregnancy in the time period there would be a glut of males where only the more sucessful males breed.
But again this is putting very rough numbers on something we have no data on.

 

[riadach]

500k would be far too much in 400 AD
You are talking about much later time periods.
From the 400 AD era there were 100-150 Kings with the smallest king ruling over a Tribal band of 40-60 people each (Aka 9,000 is the minimum Many of the kings ruled over much more than a single extended household.)

Well the 100-150 kings estimate is generally based on the number of Trícha Cét which a later construction. If you see a correspondence between trícha cét and tribal kingdom, then there is no reason why we cannot use it for population estimates. Perhaps 500,000 is far to much, but 9,000 isn't worth being called a minimum. I have never seen anything that suggest certain kings were only a cenn fine. Look at the size of the trícha cét as Paul McCotter has them, over 170 in total. It would be impossible to imagine any of them contained a mere 60 individuals.

Remember 400 AD is only 100 years after the Irish Dark ages. Grain farming is estimated to have become common around 200 AD.

I'm also remembering that population explosion that occured in the 5th and 6th centuries as a result of the importation of superior agricultural practises, not all of which occured post-Christianity.

I would put a guess (a total 100% guess) as 1 AD population of Ireland ~200k with a 25% drop in the Irish Dark Ages c 250 AD (As opposed to the 50% drop of the Romano British Dark Ages). Then a small gain back.

~180-250k around 400AD.

I would be fine with that, perhaps more as I feel the population was rising, but 9,000 took me aback.

 

[Jokolytic]

This "everyone comes from Charlemagne" pop-history urban legend needs to die.

 

[A_Dane]

This "everyone comes from Charlemagne" pop-history urban legend needs to die.

based on what?

EDIT: mostly curious, I've seen some quite convincing arguments statistics wise as to why it makes sense, but yet to see anything against it.

 

[ahyangyi]

If we talk about pure descent, all the western emperors, the Frankish, Italian, Germans and even the Hapsburgs were related to Charlemagne and by him Charles Martel and of course Clovis.

Regardless of their supposed claims of being of direct descent from Solomon the Solomonids were directly descended from the old Aksumite Kings which at least puts them back to the first century AD.

Karlings, Karlings everywhere!