It is more likely than not that the chieftaincies now
appelled with names Navarre and Wessex, followed the
custom of agnatic seniority, rather than any modern
primogeniture doctrine.
Practically all tribal chieftainships, if at all
hereditary, tended to follow agnatic seniority in such
archaic stages. Primogeniture tends to be a result of
a somewhat more stabilized, a tad urbanized society.
For those in need of information on basic concepts,
see the famedly wicked material
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnatic_seniority
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch ... y=shopping
What was a king anyhow? (was Re: Granada - king or Emir ?)
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: What was a king anyhow? (was Re: Granada - king or Emir
On Jan 26, 1:50 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What would argue against this in Navarre is that there had already
been a lineal father to son to grandson succession in the previous
dynasty. I guess this could be discounted by arguing that the
individual circumstances simply led to this coincidentally - Inigo's
was a small family, with only one known (full-)brother, Fortun
Iniguez. He was the premier warrior in the kingdom, but was killed in
battle a decade before Inigo (but Garcia is described as acting in his
father's stead, suggesting that he was already tapped as successor -
perhaps this is anachronistic on the part of the chronicler, and the
fact that Garcia succeeded led him to portray Garcia's role as
nominated successor before the battle, when he only became such after
Fortun's death). Garcia's only known younger brother fled south and
turned turk, so he had none but his own son and heir, Fortun. Still,
I think Navarre was farther along the process, and what created the
anomaly was simply the fact that Sancho's son was an infant. Basicaly,
that this is more to be compared with Berenger Raymond II of Barcelona
(well, without the fratricide and matricide, but no analogy is
perfect). This doesn't mean, however, that Jimeno was any less of a
king.
As long as I have mentioned it, the prominent model describing the
first century of the kingdom of Navarre follows similar
reconstructions by Levi Provencal and Perez de Urbel, whereby the
Arista family kept getting themselves captured, and the Jimenez clan
served as regents during these periods, such that you had an
alternation between families with the latter finally fully supplanting
the former. I just finished reading an article by Sanchez Albornoz in
which he works his way through this reconstruction, step by step, and
obliterates it, dismissing it as nothing but wishful thinking. He
argues convincingly that Garcia Iniguez was never captured for more
than the briefest of times, that the supposed early reference to
Jimeno may just as well be a reference to Garcia Iniguez, that Garcia
appears to have survived until after his son Fortun returned from
Cordoba, that even if he didn't Fortun had a full brother and a couple
of brothers in law that could just as well have filed the role without
it going out of the family, that (as I have argued repeatedly)
everyone named Jimeno is not necessarily a member of the same family -
basically that there is no basis for this whole house of cards, and
that the first the Jimenez family got a sniff of the throne of Navarre
was when Alfonso III of Asturias and Raymond I of Ribagorza decided to
play regional power politics and put the latter's nephew on the throne
in place of a weak Fortun Garces.
taf
It is more likely than not that the chieftaincies now
appelled with names Navarre and Wessex, followed the
custom of agnatic seniority, rather than any modern
primogeniture doctrine.
What would argue against this in Navarre is that there had already
been a lineal father to son to grandson succession in the previous
dynasty. I guess this could be discounted by arguing that the
individual circumstances simply led to this coincidentally - Inigo's
was a small family, with only one known (full-)brother, Fortun
Iniguez. He was the premier warrior in the kingdom, but was killed in
battle a decade before Inigo (but Garcia is described as acting in his
father's stead, suggesting that he was already tapped as successor -
perhaps this is anachronistic on the part of the chronicler, and the
fact that Garcia succeeded led him to portray Garcia's role as
nominated successor before the battle, when he only became such after
Fortun's death). Garcia's only known younger brother fled south and
turned turk, so he had none but his own son and heir, Fortun. Still,
I think Navarre was farther along the process, and what created the
anomaly was simply the fact that Sancho's son was an infant. Basicaly,
that this is more to be compared with Berenger Raymond II of Barcelona
(well, without the fratricide and matricide, but no analogy is
perfect). This doesn't mean, however, that Jimeno was any less of a
king.
As long as I have mentioned it, the prominent model describing the
first century of the kingdom of Navarre follows similar
reconstructions by Levi Provencal and Perez de Urbel, whereby the
Arista family kept getting themselves captured, and the Jimenez clan
served as regents during these periods, such that you had an
alternation between families with the latter finally fully supplanting
the former. I just finished reading an article by Sanchez Albornoz in
which he works his way through this reconstruction, step by step, and
obliterates it, dismissing it as nothing but wishful thinking. He
argues convincingly that Garcia Iniguez was never captured for more
than the briefest of times, that the supposed early reference to
Jimeno may just as well be a reference to Garcia Iniguez, that Garcia
appears to have survived until after his son Fortun returned from
Cordoba, that even if he didn't Fortun had a full brother and a couple
of brothers in law that could just as well have filed the role without
it going out of the family, that (as I have argued repeatedly)
everyone named Jimeno is not necessarily a member of the same family -
basically that there is no basis for this whole house of cards, and
that the first the Jimenez family got a sniff of the throne of Navarre
was when Alfonso III of Asturias and Raymond I of Ribagorza decided to
play regional power politics and put the latter's nephew on the throne
in place of a weak Fortun Garces.
taf
-
Hovite
Survival of the fittest
On Jan 26, 9:50 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Primogeniture was imposed by the church to end the bloodshed caused by
the previous system, which was rule by the strongest. Here is a
typically blood stained entry from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:
"This year Cyneheard slew King Cynewulf, and was slain
himself, and eighty-four men with him. Then Berthric undertook
the government of the West-Saxons, and reigned sixteen years.
His body is deposited at Wareham; and his pedigree goeth in a
direct line to Cerdic. At this time reigned Ealhmund king in Kent,
the father of Ecgberht; and Ecgberht was the father of Ethelwulf."
(This was obviously written during the reign of Ethelwulf, and so is
not a contemporary record of the events.)
It is more likely than not that the chieftaincies now
appelled with names Navarre and Wessex, followed the
custom of agnatic seniority, rather than any modern
primogeniture doctrine.
Primogeniture was imposed by the church to end the bloodshed caused by
the previous system, which was rule by the strongest. Here is a
typically blood stained entry from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:
"This year Cyneheard slew King Cynewulf, and was slain
himself, and eighty-four men with him. Then Berthric undertook
the government of the West-Saxons, and reigned sixteen years.
His body is deposited at Wareham; and his pedigree goeth in a
direct line to Cerdic. At this time reigned Ealhmund king in Kent,
the father of Ecgberht; and Ecgberht was the father of Ethelwulf."
(This was obviously written during the reign of Ethelwulf, and so is
not a contemporary record of the events.)