I know that there is no accepted line into antiquity but is there any other person who lived in one 5th century in Europe that can be traced to?
On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 6:29:35 PM UTC-8, Dude wrote:
I know that there is no accepted line into antiquity but is there any other person who lived in one 5th century in Europe that can be traced to?I'm not sure there are *any* solid lines that far back in Europe.
Op maandag 3 januari 2022 om 04:22:08 UTC+1 schreef pj.ev...@gmail.com:
On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 6:29:35 PM UTC-8, Dude wrote:Even the line of descent to Cerdic is all but sure. To many unsure generations in what seems to be a 9 or 10 th age construction to flatter the Wessex hegemony. That´s what I read the last couple of years.
I know that there is no accepted line into antiquity but is there any other person who lived in one 5th century in Europe that can be traced to?I'm not sure there are *any* solid lines that far back in Europe.
The 5th century starts to lead to more questions than certaintly on these lines; although the Kings of Leinster would be a candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimthann_mac_%C3%89nnai
Arnulf of Metz certainly is a highly documented early ancestor of Europe with a clear line in the 6th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnulf_of_Metz
The kings of Dál Riata could also be a candidate.
If you are OK with gaps in the line; then it is almost assured that the Armenian rulers were descended from the Arsacids in Parthia which could get you back into the B.C. Maybe someone will dig up better evidence here.
On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 3:03:21 PM UTC-6, joe...@gmail.com wrote:well as the above Crimthann) can only be accepted back to about ca. 850 before the chronology becomes suspicious. Much better is the line of Eve's mother Mor from the Ui Dunlaing dynasty of Leinster, which includes descents from several well-documented
The 5th century starts to lead to more questions than certaintly on these lines; although the Kings of Leinster would be a candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimthann_mac_%C3%89nnaiCertain Irish lines are good candidates, but not the one indicated in the above link. These early Irish lines have to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and the Ui Chennselaig line of Leinster (of which the famous "Eve of Leinster" was a member, as
therefore presumably had thousands of descendants after a few hundred years and millions after a millennium or so. By now, his list of descendants would undoubtedly include everybody in the world (with the possible exception of small groups that remainedArnulf of Metz certainly is a highly documented early ancestor of Europe with a clear line in the 6th century.Probably the best example if you also want to factor in the quality of the documentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnulf_of_Metz
The kings of Dál Riata could also be a candidate.Maybe, but the quality of the documentation for this line during the eighth century is not that good (but also, in my opinion, not as bad as some of its critics have claimed).
If you are OK with gaps in the line; then it is almost assured that the Armenian rulers were descended from the Arsacids in Parthia which could get you back into the B.C. Maybe someone will dig up better evidence here.Only if you allow the possibility that the "gaps" are REALLY large. On this basis, I could get us an extra millennium by claiming a descent "with gaps" from Ramses II of Egypt on the following basis: He had more than 70 documented children, and
Parthian Arsacids > Armenian Arsacids > Gregorids > Mamikonids > Armenian Bagratids > Georgian Bagratidsprobably in the eighth century (surviving in independent Irish and Welsh versions which agree on the important parts). Not as well-documented as some of the Irish dynasties, but not too shabby either.
the last of which go up to the early nineteenth century. However, I have never seen a plausible attempt to get into medieval Western Europe without a huge amount of conjecture.
With regard to Cerdic of Wessex, with whom this thread started, his candidacy should not be taken seriously. Even if he existed at all (possible, but not certain), the evidence is too late and contradictory to regard the line of descent as plausible.
Also worth mentioning is the line going back through the kings of Dyfed in Wales, which goes back to a king mentioned as a contemporary by Gildas (writing probably in the first half of the sixth century), with the earliest surviving version written
I am much less well informed on Asian dynasties, but based on what I have read, the case for ancestry of the Japanese emperors would appear to be somewhat comparable to these European dynasties, like the Irish genealogies blending from history intomyth and legend in a way that the boundary between them is difficult to determine.
Stewart Baldwin
And perhaps a teaspoon of caution on the supposed line back to Armenia
There are probably insurmountable issues with this proposal
On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 2:19:55 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
And perhaps a teaspoon of caution on the supposed line back to Armenia There are probably insurmountable issues with this proposalI thought there were accepted lines back to Gregory the Illuminator (257-301).
On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 3:03:21 PM UTC-6, joe...@gmail.com wrote:well as the above Crimthann) can only be accepted back to about ca. 850 before the chronology becomes suspicious. Much better is the line of Eve's mother Mor from the Ui Dunlaing dynasty of Leinster, which includes descents from several well-documented
The 5th century starts to lead to more questions than certaintly on these lines; although the Kings of Leinster would be a candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimthann_mac_%C3%89nnaiCertain Irish lines are good candidates, but not the one indicated in the above link. These early Irish lines have to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and the Ui Chennselaig line of Leinster (of which the famous "Eve of Leinster" was a member, as
therefore presumably had thousands of descendants after a few hundred years and millions after a millennium or so. By now, his list of descendants would undoubtedly include everybody in the world (with the possible exception of small groups that remainedArnulf of Metz certainly is a highly documented early ancestor of Europe with a clear line in the 6th century.Probably the best example if you also want to factor in the quality of the documentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnulf_of_Metz
The kings of Dál Riata could also be a candidate.Maybe, but the quality of the documentation for this line during the eighth century is not that good (but also, in my opinion, not as bad as some of its critics have claimed).
If you are OK with gaps in the line; then it is almost assured that the Armenian rulers were descended from the Arsacids in Parthia which could get you back into the B.C. Maybe someone will dig up better evidence here.Only if you allow the possibility that the "gaps" are REALLY large. On this basis, I could get us an extra millennium by claiming a descent "with gaps" from Ramses II of Egypt on the following basis: He had more than 70 documented children, and
Parthian Arsacids > Armenian Arsacids > Gregorids > Mamikonids > Armenian Bagratids > Georgian Bagratidsprobably in the eighth century (surviving in independent Irish and Welsh versions which agree on the important parts). Not as well-documented as some of the Irish dynasties, but not too shabby either.
the last of which go up to the early nineteenth century. However, I have never seen a plausible attempt to get into medieval Western Europe without a huge amount of conjecture.
With regard to Cerdic of Wessex, with whom this thread started, his candidacy should not be taken seriously. Even if he existed at all (possible, but not certain), the evidence is too late and contradictory to regard the line of descent as plausible.
Also worth mentioning is the line going back through the kings of Dyfed in Wales, which goes back to a king mentioned as a contemporary by Gildas (writing probably in the first half of the sixth century), with the earliest surviving version written
I am much less well informed on Asian dynasties, but based on what I have read, the case for ancestry of the Japanese emperors would appear to be somewhat comparable to these European dynasties, like the Irish genealogies blending from history intomyth and legend in a way that the boundary between them is difficult to determine.
Stewart Baldwin
On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 2:19:55 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
And perhaps a teaspoon of caution on the supposed line back to Armenia There are probably insurmountable issues with this proposalI thought there were accepted lines back to Gregory the Illuminator (257-301).
Dear Stewart, Happy New Year, how far back do you think the royal line of Wessex can be taken seriously? BTW, what so you think of this article that is harsh on such descents,
https://fmg.ac/publications/journal/volume-2/file/255-flights? I found it cited at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ealhmund_of_Kent.
On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 4:17:55 AM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:perhaps even usually) split up into pieces, each ruled by a different member of the royal family. There are plenty of hints of this if one combs carefully through the sources, and this idea has been proposed on a number of occasions. Eventually, after
Dear Stewart, Happy New Year, how far back do you think the royal line of Wessex can be taken seriously? BTW, what so you think of this article that is harsh on such descents,The problem with the genealogy of the earlier part of the West Saxon dynasty is that the sources are not that good and contain a large number of contradictions. The best explanation for this is that during the earlier period, the kingdom was often (
https://fmg.ac/publications/journal/volume-2/file/255-flights? I found it cited at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ealhmund_of_Kent.
My own opinion is that the official ancestry of Egbert of Wessex is probably OK back to Ine's brother Ingeld, and a generation or so before that, and is perhaps "approximately true" as far back as Ceawlin, although one version has an extra generation,and things are extremely obscure by the time you get back to the late sixth century. Earlier than that, virtually nothing is verifiable. I would regard Ceawlin as the earliest clearly historical West Saxon king, and even if he was the ancestor of Egbert,
Stewart Baldwin
On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 4:17:55 AM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:perhaps even usually) split up into pieces, each ruled by a different member of the royal family. There are plenty of hints of this if one combs carefully through the sources, and this idea has been proposed on a number of occasions. Eventually, after
Dear Stewart, Happy New Year, how far back do you think the royal line of Wessex can be taken seriously? BTW, what so you think of this article that is harsh on such descents,The problem with the genealogy of the earlier part of the West Saxon dynasty is that the sources are not that good and contain a large number of contradictions. The best explanation for this is that during the earlier period, the kingdom was often (
https://fmg.ac/publications/journal/volume-2/file/255-flights? I found it cited at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ealhmund_of_Kent.
My own opinion is that the official ancestry of Egbert of Wessex is probably OK back to Ine's brother Ingeld, and a generation or so before that, and is perhaps "approximately true" as far back as Ceawlin, although one version has an extra generation,and things are extremely obscure by the time you get back to the late sixth century. Earlier than that, virtually nothing is verifiable. I would regard Ceawlin as the earliest clearly historical West Saxon king, and even if he was the ancestor of Egbert,
Stewart Baldwin
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 285 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 61:10:35 |
Calls: | 6,488 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,094 |
Messages: | 5,274,430 |