Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Chuck Owens

Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Legg inn av Chuck Owens » 16 jul 2007 17:15:37

Dear Group,

I have a question regarding Gregoras or Gregory Iberitzes' ancestry.
Was Gregoras Iberitzes' father David I of the Bagratid dynasty, son of
Bagrat I? And if so, which source shows it?

Gregoras Iberitzes was the father-in-law of Konstantino Dukas (d.
913). Konstantino Dukas may have been the ancestor of Andronicus
Dukas, ancestor of John of Gaunt.

Sincerely,

Chuck Owens

Peter Stewart

Re: Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jul 2007 04:54:50

"Chuck Owens" <cancertech7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184602537.477575.209340@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Dear Group,

I have a question regarding Gregoras or Gregory Iberitzes' ancestry.
Was Gregoras Iberitzes' father David I of the Bagratid dynasty, son of
Bagrat I? And if so, which source shows it?

None - his parentage is not recorded, and although a Georgian origin is
assumed from his surname this too is not proven.

Gregoras Iberitzes was the father-in-law of Konstantino Dukas (d.
913). Konstantino Dukas may have been the ancestor of Andronicus
Dukas, ancestor of John of Gaunt.

Konstantinos Doux had two known sons, Gregoras and Stephanos (there was
probably also a firstborn named Andronikos after the paternal grandfather,
but if so he was presumably dead before his father's rebellion in 913 as he
is not mentioned in that context).

Gregoras was killed June 913, without a wife or any children as far as can
be known, while Stephanos was castrated soon after their father's death in
the same month, then exiled.

There doesn't appear to be any solid ground for speculating that
Konstantinos Doux could have been an ancestor of anyone after his sons. Why
do you suggest this?

Peter Stewart

Chuck Owens

Re: Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Legg inn av Chuck Owens » 17 jul 2007 17:04:38

There doesn't appear to be any solid ground for speculating that
Konstantinos Doux could have been an ancestor of anyone after his sons. Why
do you suggest this?

Peter Stewart

My source for this possibility came from Michael Psellus'
Chronographia, Book VII, section on Constantine X, line 6, translated
by E.R.A. Sewter, where Psellus stated, referring to Constantine X,
"His family, as far back as his great-grandfathers, had been both
distinguished and affluent, the kind of persons historians record in
their works. Certain it is that to this very day the names of the
celebrated Andronicus, of Constantine, of Pantherius, are on
everybody's lips -- all relatives of his, some on the paternal, others
on the mother's side."

Based on your data though it doesn't appear that Andronicus Dukas
could have been a descendant of Gregoras Iberitzes' son-in-law
Constantine Dukas unless there's a son that's not accounted for or
through a female line.

Thanks,

Chuck

Chuck Owens

Re: Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Legg inn av Chuck Owens » 18 jul 2007 16:46:55

There doesn't appear to be any solid ground for speculating that
Konstantinos Doux could have been an ancestor of anyone after his sons. Why
do you suggest this?

Peter Stewart

My source for this possibility came from Michael Psellus'
Chronographia, Book VII, section on Constantine X, line 6, translated
by E.R.A. Sewter, where Psellus stated, referring to Constantine X,
"His family, as far back as his great-grandfathers, had been both
distinguished and affluent, the kind of persons historians record in
their works. Certain it is that to this very day the names of the
celebrated Andronicus, of Constantine, of Pantherius, are on
everybody's lips -- all relatives of his, some on the paternal, others
on the mother's side."

Based on your data though it doesn't appear that Andronicus Dukas
could have been a descendant of Gregoras Iberitzes' son-in-law
Constantine Dukas unless there's a son that's not accounted for or
through a female line.

Thanks,

Chuck

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 20 jul 2007 12:40:14

On 18 juil, 17:46, Chuck Owens <cancerte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
There doesn't appear to be any solid ground for speculating that
Konstantinos Doux could have been an ancestor of anyone after his sons. Why
do you suggest this?

Peter Stewart

My source for this possibility came from Michael Psellus'
Chronographia, Book VII, section on Constantine X, line 6, translated
by E.R.A. Sewter, where Psellus stated, referring to Constantine X,
"His family, as far back as his great-grandfathers, had been both
distinguished and affluent, the kind of persons historians record in
their works. Certain it is that to this very day the names of the
celebrated Andronicus, of Constantine, of Pantherius, are on
everybody's lips -- all relatives of his, some on the paternal, others
on the mother's side."

Based on your data though it doesn't appear that Andronicus Dukas
could have been a descendant of Gregoras Iberitzes' son-in-law
Constantine Dukas unless there's a son that's not accounted for or
through a female line.

In relating a Bulgarian ambush to a Byzantine army in 917/918,
Skylitzès does indeed mention between the killed a Nikolaos, son of
Kônstantinos Doukas. This was rejected by Polemis for two reasons: 1)
The text of Skylitzès is following closely the narrative of Symeon the
Logothet, to which it only adds some details. 2) Anyway, the fact is
unlikely since descendants of Kônstantinos were eliminated one way or
the other, and even if they were not all, it is unthinkable that one
of them would have served in such position, only five years after
Kônstantinos' plot, in the army of a regime which was so insecure with
them and had send them into exile. The first argument is absolutely
convincing since it is clear that Skylitzès had no other source here
than Symeon and, as says Polemis, only assume this genealogical
connection for chronological reason. Remains the problem of who was
this Doux (or this duke as another copycat of Symeon understood it,
taking the name for a title) of whom Nikolaos was a son, and who was
so easily identifiable that Symeon did not think useful to specify his
identity.

The question of the connection between the ancient and xie century-
Doukai is a vexed one, which has not received a satisfactory
explanation: the sources are contradictory and exclude reciprocally a
male-line and female-line relation.

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 20 jul 2007 13:25:03

On 17 juil, 05:54, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Chuck Owens" <cancerte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1184602537.477575.209340@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

Dear Group,

I have a question regarding Gregoras or Gregory Iberitzes' ancestry.
Was Gregoras Iberitzes' father David I of the Bagratid dynasty, son of
Bagrat I? And if so, which source shows it?

None - his parentage is not recorded, and although a Georgian origin is
assumed from his surname this too is not proven.

Gregoras Iberitzes was the father-in-law of Konstantino Dukas (d.
913). Konstantino Dukas may have been the ancestor of Andronicus
Dukas, ancestor of John of Gaunt.

Konstantinos Doux had two known sons, Gregoras and Stephanos (there was
probably also a firstborn named Andronikos after the paternal grandfather,
but if so he was presumably dead before his father's rebellion in 913 as he
is not mentioned in that context).

Of course, one can not exclude that this hypothetical Andronikos had
the time to marry and to beget a child of any sex before his
hypothetical untimely death.

We could then hypothesis a line of that kind:

Andronikos Doux
I
Kônstantinos Doux
+ 913
I
[Andronikos Doux]
[+ before 913]
I
[Kônstantinos Doux/Doukas]
[born before 913]
I
Andronikos Doukas Lydos
supporter of Bardas Sklèros in 976
+ before 979/980
[married to a Sklèraina: see below]
I
[Kônstantinos Doukas]
[would have been born after ca 950]
I
Andronikos Doukas
stratègos of the Great Preslav
born before ca 980, fl. around 1020
I
Kônstantinos Doukitzès/Doukas, emperor Constantine X
born ca 1007

It has the advantage to explain the transmission of the names,
particularly the relatively rare Andronikos, and how Andronikos and
Kônstantinos of the 9th and 10th centuries can have been related to
emperor Constantine X "on the paternal side" has says Psellos. In his
enumeration, Panthèrios would be the only one to be the emperor's
relative "on his maternal side" (as already assumed by Polemis), and
would perhaps not be a Doux/Doukas himself which can plaid for a
marriage in the Sklèros family (although, as Christian Settipani has
said on this forum some years ago, the name Panthèrios was not so
rare). And we know that Andronikos Doukas who died between 976 and 980
supported the revolt of Bardas Sklèros and had himself a son named
Bardas...

Of course, there are many objections. The "great grandfather" of
Psellos would have to be understood as meaning simply "ancestor" in
this reconstruction (although his great grandfather would be
Andronikos Doukas Lydos, who was not an insignificant figure). All
this takes for nothing the affirmation of Zonaras that all the male
members of the Doux family perished and that Constantine X was related
to them only through female line (which, however, is also in
contradiction with Psellos who claims that some of them at least were
his relatives on the male line). Two sons of Andronikos Doukas Lydos
are known, none of them called Kônstantinos...

All this is only for the sake of discussion of course, nothing of that
is proven in anyway and I do not claim at all it is "the truth".

Pierre

Chuck Owens

Re: Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Legg inn av Chuck Owens » 20 jul 2007 17:06:15

All this is only for the sake of discussion of course, nothing of that
is proven in anyway and I do not claim at all it is "the truth".

Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Thank you so much for your analysis of the Doukas family. I need some
time to mull over the material that you have posted. Your
hypothetical construction of the early Doukas family is very
interesting.

Chuck

Peter Stewart

Re: Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2007 09:12:02

"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote in message
news:1184934303.461183.215650@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 17 juil, 05:54, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Chuck Owens" <cancerte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1184602537.477575.209340@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

Dear Group,

I have a question regarding Gregoras or Gregory Iberitzes' ancestry.
Was Gregoras Iberitzes' father David I of the Bagratid dynasty, son of
Bagrat I? And if so, which source shows it?

None - his parentage is not recorded, and although a Georgian origin is
assumed from his surname this too is not proven.

Gregoras Iberitzes was the father-in-law of Konstantino Dukas (d.
913). Konstantino Dukas may have been the ancestor of Andronicus
Dukas, ancestor of John of Gaunt.

Konstantinos Doux had two known sons, Gregoras and Stephanos (there was
probably also a firstborn named Andronikos after the paternal
grandfather,
but if so he was presumably dead before his father's rebellion in 913 as
he
is not mentioned in that context).

Of course, one can not exclude that this hypothetical Andronikos had
the time to marry and to beget a child of any sex before his
hypothetical untimely death.

Agreed, although the chronology as well as the silence of sources would not
strongly suggest this. In general, I would urge an extra degree of caution
about hypothetically reconstructing a lineage from such conventional
likelihoods - after all, we might equally suppose that Emperor Konstantinos
X had a firstborn son named Andronikos after his father, yet this was the
name of his second son and the eldest was called Michael, perhaps in honour
of the child's maternal great-uncle Patriarch Michael I Keroularios.

Peter Stewart

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 21 jul 2007 19:09:19

On 21 juil, 10:12, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"pierre_aro...@hotmail.com" <pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote in message

news:1184934303.461183.215650@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 17 juil, 05:54, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:





"Chuck Owens" <cancerte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1184602537.477575.209340@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

Dear Group,

I have a question regarding Gregoras or Gregory Iberitzes' ancestry.
Was Gregoras Iberitzes' father David I of the Bagratid dynasty, son of
Bagrat I? And if so, which source shows it?

None - his parentage is not recorded, and although a Georgian origin is
assumed from his surname this too is not proven.

Gregoras Iberitzes was the father-in-law of Konstantino Dukas (d.
913). Konstantino Dukas may have been the ancestor of Andronicus
Dukas, ancestor of John of Gaunt.

Konstantinos Doux had two known sons, Gregoras and Stephanos (there was
probably also a firstborn named Andronikos after the paternal
grandfather,
but if so he was presumably dead before his father's rebellion in 913 as
he
is not mentioned in that context).

Of course, one can not exclude that this hypothetical Andronikos had
the time to marry and to beget a child of any sex before his
hypothetical untimely death.

Agreed, although the chronology as well as the silence of sources would not
strongly suggest this. In general, I would urge an extra degree of caution
about hypothetically reconstructing a lineage from such conventional
likelihoods - after all, we might equally suppose that Emperor Konstantinos
X had a firstborn son named Andronikos after his father, yet this was the
name of his second son and the eldest was called Michael, perhaps in honour
of the child's maternal great-uncle Patriarch Michael I Keroularios.



Yes I am aware of that problem and stress that what I posted was not
intended to be a reconstruction but only a possibility (and anyway
reconstructions themselves are not certitudes).

That being said, I think a part of it can be considered as less
hypothetical.

- Psellos claims a line from Constantine X to a Panthèrios, most
probably a matrilineal line since of the three names he mentions
(Andronikos, Kônstantinos and Panthèrios), only the last one is not
used in the Doux/Doukas family.

- The name of Panthèrios points to the Sklèroi and is mentioned
because it was the first prominent figure in that line.

- Andronikos Doukas Lydos supported the revolt of Bardas Sklèros and
had a son named Bardas, all which strongly suggest he was married to a
Sklèraina, eventually a daughter of Bardas Sklèros.

It is difficult to think there is no relation between that last fact
and what says Psellos about the ancestry of Constantine X. Hence
Andronikos Doukas Lydos is most probably an ancestor of that emperor.
Conventional transmission of names is perhaps not enough to
reconstruct a whole line of unattested individuals bearing
alternatively two names, but it is certainly enough to guess where
exactly we have to put Andronikos Doukas Lydos in the ascendancy of
someone whose own father was named himself Andronikos: ADL must be the
emperor's great grandfather, since two more generations back would be
too early in the 10th century.

In that post:
http://groups.google.fr/group/soc.genea ... b65?hl=fr&
Christian Settipani suggested on the contrary that it was Andronikos
Doukas, father of Constantine X, who "married the granddaughter or the
great-granddaughter of Pantherios Skleros". However, I find my
explanation more satisfactory because we have not to suppose two
different Andronikos Doukas marrying two Sklèrainai at some decades of
distance, but only one and the same, and there are less generations
between that unique Skèraina and Panthèrios, which explains more
easily why he is mentioned by Psellos rather than another more recent
Sklèros.

Now to connect Andronikos Doukas Lydos himself to the first members of
the family is another story. Here we are clearly dealing with
hypothesis and possibilities and no more with reconstructions. Such
connection is implied by Psellos nevertheless (his Andronikos can
perhaps be Lydos, but is Kônstantinos is obviously Kônstantinos Doux).
A line through Kônstantinos Doux is not absolutely impossible as we
have seen, and would be more coherent with Psellos. However, the
transmission of the name Andronikos would only sustain a relation to
Andronikos Doux (Kônstantinos is much more common and so can be
explained in other way than I have done in the hypothetical line I
posted yesterday). If we turn back again to the mysterious Nikolaos
"son of Doux", and if we admit with Polemis that he can not have been
a son of Kônstantinos Doux, then the only other Doux available in the
chronicles to be his father would be Kônstantinos' father Andronikos.
Nikolaos can perfectly have had descendants, considering that he
doesn't seem to have suffered from the repression of his
(hypothetical) brother' uprising. They would have been also
descendants of Andronikos Doux and could have transmitted his name and
memory. For that part of the ascendancy of the Doukai, I think indeed
we don't know enough for a reconstruction.

Pierre Aronax

Peter Stewart

Re: Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 jul 2007 08:08:43

"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote in message
news:1185041359.819752.55270@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

- Psellos claims a line from Constantine X to a Panthèrios, most
probably a matrilineal line since of the three names he mentions
(Andronikos, Kônstantinos and Panthèrios), only the last one is not
used in the Doux/Doukas family.

- The name of Panthèrios points to the Sklèroi and is mentioned
because it was the first prominent figure in that line.

- Andronikos Doukas Lydos supported the revolt of Bardas Sklèros and
had a son named Bardas, all which strongly suggest he was married to a
Sklèraina, eventually a daughter of Bardas Sklèros.

No doubt there is room for interpretation of the passage by Psellos,
especially as to whether the term 'propappous' applied literally to all or
any of the three individuals named as relatives of Konstantinos X through
both his parents. However, since Andronikos was named before Konstantinos, I
think we have to assume Psellos meant the very famous father and son who
died ca 910 and in 913 respectively, rather than a later namesake of either
man. There must have been possible links between the Doukai and the Skleroi
in several generations, whether or not the specific unknown lines involved
to these three luminaries were ancestral or collateral.

It is also worth recalling that the name Michael occurred in the family
before Konstantinos X's son: Konstantinos Doux had a nephew of this name who
was also killed in the rebellion of June/July 913. Assuming this was a
Michael Doux/Doukas, the name could have been transmitted through him -
especially if the later Doukai were agnatic descendants and proud enough of
their celebrated predecessors to go on bestowing their names rather than
adopting new ones from influential connections on the distaff side, such as
Michael Keroularios or indeed Michael Psellos himself.

Peter Stewart

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 22 jul 2007 11:56:19

On 22 juil, 09:08, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"pierre_aro...@hotmail.com" <pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote in message

news:1185041359.819752.55270@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

snip

- Psellos claims a line from Constantine X to a Panthèrios, most
probably a matrilineal line since of the three names he mentions
(Andronikos, Kônstantinos and Panthèrios), only the last one is not
used in the Doux/Doukas family.

- The name of Panthèrios points to the Sklèroi and is mentioned
because it was the first prominent figure in that line.

- Andronikos Doukas Lydos supported the revolt of Bardas Sklèros and
had a son named Bardas, all which strongly suggest he was married to a
Sklèraina, eventually a daughter of Bardas Sklèros.

No doubt there is room for interpretation of the passage by Psellos,
especially as to whether the term 'propappous' applied literally to all or
any of the three individuals named as relatives of Konstantinos X through
both his parents.

Psellos does not say that the relations was maternal and paternal but
that they were in the male and female line: so the relation in female
line can be through any of the spouses of Constantine X' ancestors in
the male line, not necessarily his mother.

However, since Andronikos was named before Konstantinos, I
think we have to assume Psellos meant the very famous father and son who
died ca 910 and in 913 respectively, rather than a later namesake of either
man.

I don't think my reconstitution contradicts that: my point was that
according to Psellos Constantine X was a descendant of the Sklèroi in
female line and of the Doukai in male line, that we have from another
source a probable intermediary marriage of an Andronikos Doukas and a
Sklèraina and so that this Andronikos Doukas must be placed in the
ascendancy of Constantine. For anthroponomical reasons he must be
Constantine X's great grandfather and it happens that it fits well
chronologically.

He can of course be himself a descendant of Andronikos and Constantine
Doux, as I suggested in the possible line I posted two days ago. In
that case, the text of Psellos would be perfectly coherent.

There must have been possible links between the Doukai and the Skleroi
in several generations, whether or not the specific unknown lines involved
to these three luminaries were ancestral or collateral.

I do not see how a collateral relation with the Sklèroi would be
particularly illustrated by the name of Panthèrios: Psellos would have
spoken of a chronologically closer figure, as Bardas. For me, it is
clear that he speaks here of an ancestor.

It is also worth recalling that the name Michael occurred in the family
before Konstantinos X's son: Konstantinos Doux had a nephew of this name who
was also killed in the rebellion of June/July 913. Assuming this was a
Michael Doux/Doukas, the name could have been transmitted through him -
especially if the later Doukai were agnatic descendants and proud enough of
their celebrated predecessors to go on bestowing their names rather than
adopting new ones from influential connections on the distaff side, such as
Michael Keroularios or indeed Michael Psellos himself.

I don't think so: it would be an explanation if Constantine X's father
was named Michael, but he was not and so the name can not have been
"transmitted" in that way. That name would have to be readopted
voluntarily for a specific reason. But Michael Doux was not such a
prominent figure to disturb the normal transmission of surname from
grandfather to grandson five generations after his death. Moreover,
Michael is a very common name, much more than Andronikos, and its
resurfacing can be explained in a better way by the contemporary
context than by a remote and shadowy ancestor bearing a very common
name. Clearly, the family names of the Doukai which identified them
were Andronikos and Kônstantinos.

Anyway, being a descendant of Michaèl Doux would not prevent
Constantine X to be a descendant of Andronikos Doukas Lydos, which was
my point here.

However, with a line through Michaèl Doux, you have more difficulty to
explain the transmission of the name Andronikos (the more specific and
rare at the time and so the more useful for our little game). Indeed,
Michaèl Doux was a grandson of Andronikos Doux and obviously he did
not bear his name, so he could not have transmitted that name to his
own grandson by a simple mechanical way. He could have done that by
anthroponomical voluntarism of course, but that would suppose then a
second violation of the general rule in the same line. Not impossible,
but I find my hypothetical line more likely.

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 22 jul 2007 12:17:31

On 20 juil, 14:25, "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"
<pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 17 juil, 05:54, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

<...>
It has the advantage to explain the transmission of the names,
particularly the relatively rare Andronikos, and how Andronikos and
Kônstantinos of the 9th and 10th centuries can have been related to
emperor Constantine X "on the paternal side" has says Psellos. In his
enumeration, Panthèrios would be the only one to be the emperor's
relative "on his maternal side"
...


A more exact translation would be "in the male line" (ex arrénos
génous) and "in the female (line)" (ek thèléos): that does not imply
that the female line is through Constantine X's mother.

Pierre

Peter Stewart

Re: Gregoras Iberitzes, a Bagratid descendant?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 jul 2007 13:45:45

"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote in message
news:1185103051.294711.217920@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 20 juil, 14:25, "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"
<pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 17 juil, 05:54, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

...
It has the advantage to explain the transmission of the names,
particularly the relatively rare Andronikos, and how Andronikos and
Kônstantinos of the 9th and 10th centuries can have been related to
emperor Constantine X "on the paternal side" has says Psellos. In his
enumeration, Panthèrios would be the only one to be the emperor's
relative "on his maternal side"
...

A more exact translation would be "in the male line" (ex arrénos
génous) and "in the female (line)" (ek thèléos): that does not imply
that the female line is through Constantine X's mother.

By a literal reading, but the convention was to extol the ancestry on both
the father's and the mother's side and I can't see why the rather vague
remarks of Psellos should not be taken in that light.

I also think we should take some meaning from the particular locution,
suggesting that Emperor Konstantinos X was related to these three luminaries
from the generation of his great-grandfather - I don't agree that we can
strip this term of the usual specific meaning, and unless we are to suppose
that "propappous" was simply an arbitrary cut-off point for the family's
distinction, it would seem in the context to imply that this is as far back
as the agantic line was a distinguished one, so that from there the
relationship to past greatness was merely collateral. Since Konstantinos X
was born in 1006, his great-grandfathers would have been born roughly 60-100
years earlier, not long enough to include Andronikos Doux himself or his son
Konstantinos. The latter was killed in 913: since he had been proclaimed
emperor just before this with considerable support from the aristocracy, and
was heroised subsequently, some mention of this might be expected if he had
an imperial descendant.

The most plausible reading in my view is that these two men were notable
relatives (perhaps through a female link, but not ancestors) of an
Andronikos who assumed the surname Doukas and was great-grandfather to
Konstantinos X. Pantherios, who was not equally famous, was more likely
mentioned along with them because he was an actual ancestor, possibly even a
great-grandfather.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»