Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
John,
Hugh 'the Great,' Count of Vermandois &c., could have appropriately been called Marchisus, and a Marchisus was a commander. And among his eleven children was a son named Guillaume (William), according to ES III:55. But it seems curious that in the page you quoted, the author, in writing "Hugh the Great, and William, son of Marchisus," *didn't* say "Hugh the Great and his son William." My question would be that if the William mentioned was Hugh's son, why would the author seem to want to obscure this fact?
Your question as to the reference to a "Tancred, son of Marchisus" as being to a son of Bohemed seems to have the same problem. It just doesn't seem that the Medieval Sourcebook article is providing enough information to come to the conclusions you suggest. I'd say more information is needed. The following quote from 'The First Crusade,' by Steven Runciman (Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 69-70, provides a little more information:
"The first to leave his home was Hugh, Count of Vermandois, known as Le Mainsne, the younger, a surname translated most inappropriately by the Latin chroniclers even in his own time as Magnus. He was the younger son of King Henry I of France and of a princess of Scandinavian origin, Anne of Kiev; a man of some forty years of age, of greater rank than wealth, who had acquired his small country by marriage with its heiress, and had never played a prominent part in French Politics. He was proud of his lineage but ineffectual in action. We cannot tell what were his motives in joining the Crusade. No doubt he inherited the restlessness of his Scandinavian ancestors. Perhaps he felt that in the East he could acquire the power and riches that befitted his high birth. Probably his brother, King Philip, encouraged his decision in order to ingratiate his family with the Papacy. Leaving his lands in the care of his countess, he set out in late August for Italy, with a small army composed of his vassals and some knights form his brother's domains. Before his departure he sent a special messenger ahead of him to Constantinople, requesting the Emperor to arrange for his reception with the honors due to a prince of royal blood. As he journeyed southward he was joined by Drogo of Nesle and Clarambald of Vendeuil and William the Carpenter and other French knights returning from Emich's disastrous expedition.
Hugh and his company passed by Rome and arrived at Bari early in October. In southern Italy they found the Norman princes themselves preparing for the Crusade; and Bohemond's nephew William decided not to wait for his relatives but to cross the sea with Hugh. From Bari Hugh sent an embassy of twenty-four knights, led by William the Carpenter, across to Dyrrhachium to inform the governor that he was about to arrive and to repeat his demand for a suitable reception."
Here Runciman makes no connection between Hugh 'Le Mainsne' (aka: the Great) and William 'the Carpenter' other than William joined Hugh's party before their arrival in Italy. William, nephew of Bohemend, seems to have traveled with Hugh, while William the Carpenter was sent on ahead. So, evidently, these are two different Williams. Hopefully though, this work might help with some of the points found in the Medieval Sourcebook article you referred to.
I do know of one other place to look. The viscounts and counts of Melun are listed in ES (Detlev Schwennicke, "Europäische Stammtafeln," Neue Folge) Volume VII, Tafels 55 & 56. If you can find a set of ES in a library near you, this might provide more information on William 'the Carpenter.' Anyway, I hope this is helpful.
Jim
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/medieval/messages/1396.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|