GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-08 > 1093778794
From: Peter Stewart <>
Subject: Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:26:34 GMT
References: <5B5872B2.510A9EEB.007FA2F6@aol.com> <email@example.com> <cdZXc.10922$D7.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <fY_Xc.11056$D7.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <Q_%Xc.11114$D7.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <G2aYc.11491$D7.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Pierre Aronax wrote:
> "Peter Stewart" <> a écrit dans le message de
>>Frankish princes in the 10th century are usually (but by no means
>>always) described in such forms as "count of the Angevins", "duke [or
>>count] of the Normans", "count of the Poitevins", etc, and only later do
>>their strictly territorial designations become the normal titles.
>>However, I don't think these older usages can be taken as "ethnic"
>>denominators - the meaning of "Andevagorum comes", for instance, was
>>more like count "of the vassals in Anjou" rather than "of the people of
>>Anjou", although his authority was not of course limited to the
>>feudatories & upper orders of society in his lands.
> No objection on that. My point was only that to translate "Andegavorum
> comes" by "count of Anjou", particularly in a general discussion, is not a
> problem since what is Anjou is not a big problem, same thing for calling a
> "Francorum rex" a "king of France", since "king of France" is indeed the
> correct translation of "Francorum rex" in the 13th century and after (so for
> coherency why not calling the previous kings also "king of France"?). But
> "Francorum dux" is a different animal: it does not mean "count of France" or
> "count of the vassals in France", or at least that is not so clear that
> "Francorum dux" here means only an authority over the people living in a spe
> cific geographical aera rather than a dignity between all the Franks in all
> the kingdom. There is a county of Anjou, but what would have been exactly a
> duchy of France is less clear. That is way I think it is better to translate
> "Francorum dux" by "duke of the Franks", and that is what French historians
> generally do, even when the call Hugh Capet, for example, "king of France"
> (and not "king of the Franks").
Without refuting your opinion, I think that (quite apart from the odd
informal use of "dux Francie") the title "Francorum dux" can be taken to
mean "duke of Francia" in the limited sense that the holder was uniquely
placed within Francia between the king and all the other territorial
rulers. In other words, there was a dukedom of France, but not a duchy.
In the case of Hugo Capet, the question is also complicated by the clout
he wielded as duke but not - at least so undeniably - later as king:
"duc puissant, roi faible". The puissance had been as "national" as was