Nous sommes actuellement le 29 Mar 2024, 14:48

Heures au format UTC + 1 heure [ Heure d’été ]




Publier un nouveau sujet Répondre au sujet  [ 25 messages ]  Aller à la page 1, 2  Suivant
Auteur Message
 Sujet du message: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 07 Jan 2012, 17:39 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 25 Aoû 2011, 14:35
Messages: 81
Localisation: Afrique du Sud
Ayant lu la majorite des affiches je vois que le plupart ici ont une bonne maitrise de l'Anglais, alors je m'exprime en cette langue la - c'est bcp plus facile pour moi. Ca va?

I downloaded and read the article by Howard Wiseman on the Breton legion stationed near Orleans circa 530. Very interesting. In particular this passage:

2.3 Against the Franks
“Roman” rule in northern Gaul lasted until at least 486. In that year, according to Gregory of Tours, the Rex Romanorum, Syagrius was defeated by Clovis, a king of the Franks, near Soissons, after which Clovis “seized the kingdom of Syagrius,” seemingly completing his westward advance into Gaul.23 Gregory’s accounts of Clovis’ wars in general, however, are simplistic.24 Moreover, a more nuanced version is given in Liber historiae Francorum of c. 727: “…Clovis enlarged his kingdom, extending it as far as the Seine. At a later time he occupied as far as the river Loire.”25 The first phase of expansion, up to the Seine, can presumably be identified with the defeat of Syagrius.


This ties up with the hypothesis I had formulated (and am delighted to see confirmed here) of a war lasting between Franks and 'Romans' (with Armorican/Breton allies) lasting several years, after the defeat of Syagrius, and only concluded after Clovis' baptism in 496/7 or even later.

I have one query however: the statement that the Roman units stationed in Syagrius's former realm surrendered well before the conclusion of the war:

Thus the best interpretation of the evidence is that, in a period c. 490, the majority of Roman soldiers between the Seine and the Loire surrendered their lands to Clovis, while others of them did likewise to the Armorican Britons.

Rereading Procopius carefully I don't get this interpretation. Procopius, before speaking of the Roman units, describes the war up to its conclusion:

By that time it so happened that the Arborychi had become soldiers of the Romans. And the Germans, wishing to make this people [the Romans] subject to themselves, since their territory adjoined their own and they had changed the government under which they had lived from of old, began to plunder their land and, being eager to make war, marched against them with their whole people. But the Arborychi proved their valour and loyalty to the Romans and shewed themselves brave men in this war, and since the Germans were not able to overcome them by force, they wished to win them over and make the two peoples kin by intermarriage. This suggestion the Arborychi received not at all unwillingly; for both, as it happened, were Christians.

It is clear (to me) that the 'Romans' were the towns of Syagrius's former realm. What is meant by the statement that they had 'changed the government under which they had lived from old?' Note that Syagrius, after his defeat at Soissons, did not seek refuge in one of the towns or fortresses still in Roman hands, but fled to the Visigoths, his erstwhile enemies - a desperate move, and only explicable if his former province had rebelled against him, giving him no other choice (and no means, incidentally, of fleeing to Britain).

Note also that the Roman territory, having given Syagrius the boot, takes on the Bretons as surbordinate allies: 'But the Arborychi proved their valour and loyalty to the Romans'. Hence the Romans were in a position of superiority vis-a-vis the Bretons, which implies that they still had military muscle of their own, i.e. the Roman units stationed in their territory. It is these units, aided by Breton foederati, who are able to resist Clovis for ten years or more.

The fate of the Roman units is described after the war is over. Clovis is baptised and a peace is brokered between the Romans, Bretons and Franks. The Roman units, depending where they were stationed, passed under the control of the Franks or Bretons: '[they]gave themselves, together with their military standards and the land which they had long been guarding for the Romans, to the Arborychi and Germans'.

And now the particular question of the siege of Paris. The town lay on the frontier of the newly-acquired territory of Clovis and the still independent Roman territory between the Seine and the Loire. It is supposed to have endured a siege of ten years or more (probably interrupted). Could a siege have lasted this long? Are there other interpretations as to what happened to Paris? What was the nature of the war between the Franks and Romans/Bretons? A guerilla conflict between small bands of Franks and Bretons/Romans or a full-scale military campaign or series of campaigns?

I am open to ideas from this forum - this incidentally concerns the novel I am writing, sequel to Centurion's Daughter (Website here http://sites.google.com/site/centurionsdaughter

Merci bcp!

_________________
Auteur de Centurion's Daughter

Mon blog


Haut
 Profil Envoyer un e-mail  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 07 Jan 2012, 18:56 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 25 Aoû 2011, 14:35
Messages: 81
Localisation: Afrique du Sud
On the subject of the nature of the war between the Bretons/Romans and Franks, I had a discussion with an erudite friend of mine by email. This is what he had to say (my questions in green, his answers in blue):

I'm wondering if the war didn't resemble the struggle between the marcher lords and the Welsh chieftains: nothing very united or coherent on either side until Clovis steps in after Tolbiac and forces a peace. An idea?

I suspect a strong element of that. Geopolitically, we might get a few clues from the Hundred Years War, where Brittany existed as a semi-independent duchy part of the time. Action flared whenever the major powers (England and France) were having a truce, and generally took the form of the local French leader taking a force to besiege the nearest castle or fortified town. He would then be bounced out by a relieving army (unless he managed to beat it, as happened on occasion) and be back to square one.

This I would suggest as the pattern of war following Syagrius' demise: the Roman towns and garrisons still holding out transfer their de facto allegiance to the ruler of Brittany and ask for his protection, the surviving cavalry ride to join him and lay their swords (and lances) at his service, and the war becomes a matter of a Frankish army occasionally turning up and trying to provoke a battle (and when it does not get one, ravaging crops and besieging towns, which without effective siege equipment and techniques will not get very far), and when it goes home having eaten up all the supplies in the vicinity then the local Frankish chief starts marauding with his followers and the Bretons come out to play, resulting in a few sharp little actions in which the Franks generally get their fingers burnt (ambushes of straggling Frankish columns by Armorican cavalry being a favourite until the Franks learn not to straggle, at which point the Bretons begin trapping them in valley ambushes).



Could the forts we discussed have successfully resisted siege by the Franks? Did Franks bother much with besieging forts? How did that fit in with the fluid, guerrilla-type war employed by the Bretons against the Franks?

Given well-kept walls, enough food and sufficient garrison to fend off enthusiasts with ladders and/or wooden rams, the Bretons could have kept the Franks out of their forts. Siege warfare was something German tribes in general and Franks in particular seem never to have excelled at: where they took towns, it was usually by treachery or intimidation (or people letting them in on the understanding that they would be merciful to fellow-Christians, which sometimes happened but often did not).

Forts and fortified towns would not necessarily stop a Frankish army (it could just march past them) but it could emit cavalry behind them, acting as scouts and picking off any Franks who strayed too far from the main body (or deserted to go home with loot), so the Franks would tend to own only the ground they marched or slept on, and scouts and foragers would tend to be lost frequently, a difficult situation for an army in unfamiliar territory without guides.

The main Breton army would, once mobilised, march on a parallel route to the Franks, hoping the invaders would blunder into a defile or split their force or stop to besiege a town. They could then launch a surprise attack on a portion of the Frankish army, inflict losses, and pull out before the Franks got everyone together. A full open battle would be very unlikely, as it would be too much of a gamble for both sides (especially the Armoricans), but Breton counter-raids into Frankish territory (maybe helped by a sympathetic population, at least initially) would probably have occurred on a regular basis when the main Frankish army was not around.

Naturally, this type of war would tend to exhaust both parties without achieving much by way of results. The Breton border territories would tend to be ravaged on a regular basis, while the Franks would accrue casuaties and develop a sense of worry that would make invasions short.


Comments?

_________________
Auteur de Centurion's Daughter

Mon blog


Haut
 Profil Envoyer un e-mail  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 08 Jan 2012, 00:08 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 19 Oct 2010, 11:11
Messages: 417
Hello,

I read that the "siege" of Paris took place between 476 and 486,under the reign of Childerick Ist. It was broken by Geneviève of Paris by putting off the Seine's "dam" ( no idea if this word is correct.. ^^ ).

Then, after the defeat of Syagrius, according to Michel Rouche, ( --et là, on me dira si j'ai tort d'avoir pris ce passage pour argent comptant ;) -- ) Soissons, Beauvais, Senlis became frankish towns, and the siege of Paris had nomore reason to stay in place. He quotes the Liber Historiae Francorum : Clovis growed up ( " dilatavit" ) hi kingdom to the Seine. Geneviève, catholic and pro-civil-peace, seems to place the city under the king's law, with is also the Roman hightest represantant in Gauls with the Burgundian's King.

Concerning the fights and the war, there is not any indication.. Only that geneviève don't want to place her city against one of the two "roman" powers in place.. Siege seems to have been partially sucessfull, until the naval action of the nautes.. One of the ressource quoted in the M. Rouche 's book is " vita sante ac beatissime Genovefa virginie"..

Sorry to can't help anymore.. and for the english errs ;)

_________________
Base de données Gaules/Germanies/Mer du nord entre fin de l'empire et fin mérovingiens: http://241-752.forumgratuit.fr/
Francorum 440-580: médiation culturelle et expérimentations: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Francoru ... 3277476941


Haut
 Profil Envoyer un e-mail  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 08 Jan 2012, 06:16 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 25 Aoû 2011, 14:35
Messages: 81
Localisation: Afrique du Sud
Wiomade a écrit:
Hello,

I read that the "siege" of Paris took place between 476 and 486,under the reign of Childerick Ist. It was broken by Geneviève of Paris by putting off the Seine's "dam" ( no idea if this word is correct.. ^^ ).

Then, after the defeat of Syagrius, according to Michel Rouche, ( --et là, on me dira si j'ai tort d'avoir pris ce passage pour argent comptant ;) -- ) Soissons, Beauvais, Senlis became frankish towns, and the siege of Paris had nomore reason to stay in place. He quotes the Liber Historiae Francorum : Clovis growed up ( " dilatavit" ) hi kingdom to the Seine. Geneviève, catholic and pro-civil-peace, seems to place the city under the king's law, with is also the Roman hightest represantant in Gauls with the Burgundian's King.

Concerning the fights and the war, there is not any indication.. Only that geneviève don't want to place her city against one of the two "roman" powers in place.. Siege seems to have been partially sucessfull, until the naval action of the nautes.. One of the ressource quoted in the M. Rouche 's book is " vita sante ac beatissime Genovefa virginie"..

Sorry to can't help anymore.. and for the english errs ;)


Merci pour la reponse - et ton anglais n'est pas si mal!

L'idee que le siege de Paris s'est passe avant la defait de Syagrius en 486 est quelque chose que j'ai toujours trouve un peu difficile a croire. Paris etait au centre de la territoire de Syagrius, qui fut assez fort militairement pour opposer Clovis en pleine bataille (Les batailles prenaient lieu dans l'antiquite seulement quand les deux generaux croiraient que la victoire etait possible. La seule exception c'est l'ambuscade, qui n'etait pas le cas ici). Et Syagrius ne peut rien faire pour Paris? Pendant dix ans? Pour moi c'est invraisembable.

_________________
Auteur de Centurion's Daughter

Mon blog


Haut
 Profil Envoyer un e-mail  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 08 Jan 2012, 11:32 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 19 Oct 2010, 11:11
Messages: 417
Je trouve aussi.. Après, vu le peu de fidélité de ses villes.. la dignité de Syagrius est plus haute que celle de Childérick ( Illustrissimus je crois, contre magnificimus? Pour Childérick et Clovis. ) Raison de plus pour qu'il soit "plus autoritaire".. non?) Mais dans le livre cité, on parle d'intoxication du royaume romain, donc une position déjà de force pour les francs Saliens.. Syagrius n'aurait pas osé réagir..? Mais dix ans, c'ets long.. je trouve.. ;)

_________________
Base de données Gaules/Germanies/Mer du nord entre fin de l'empire et fin mérovingiens: http://241-752.forumgratuit.fr/
Francorum 440-580: médiation culturelle et expérimentations: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Francoru ... 3277476941


Haut
 Profil Envoyer un e-mail  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 10 Jan 2012, 19:18 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 25 Aoû 2011, 14:35
Messages: 81
Localisation: Afrique du Sud
Il y a une autre possibilite - qu'il y avait deux sieges: l'un par Childeric, qui n'etait pas de longue duree, et l'autre par Clovis. Childeric n'etait pas toujours un bon foederatus soumis a Syagrius.

Une longue siege de Paris etait probablement une succession des courtes sieges, interrompues chaque fois qu'une armee de soutien approche la ville, ou que les guerriers francs decident d'aller chez soi pour racolter la moisson.

Cependant je manque des sources pour pourvoir faire plus que hypotheser. ''''''

_________________
Auteur de Centurion's Daughter

Mon blog


Haut
 Profil Envoyer un e-mail  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 10 Jan 2012, 20:53 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 19 Oct 2010, 11:11
Messages: 417
Idme ici.. !

--> Vie de Ste genevière

--> G. de Tours

--> ?

xox

_________________
Base de données Gaules/Germanies/Mer du nord entre fin de l'empire et fin mérovingiens: http://241-752.forumgratuit.fr/
Francorum 440-580: médiation culturelle et expérimentations: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Francoru ... 3277476941


Haut
 Profil Envoyer un e-mail  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 11 Jan 2012, 11:44 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 04 Sep 2008, 11:55
Messages: 4297
Localisation: Brest - pagus Legionensis - Civitas Ossismi - Letavia
Citer:
It is clear (to me) that the 'Romans' were the towns of Syagrius's former realm. What is meant by the statement that they had 'changed the government under which they had lived from old?' Note that Syagrius, after his defeat at Soissons, did not seek refuge in one of the towns or fortresses still in Roman hands, but fled to the Visigoths, his erstwhile enemies - a desperate move, and only explicable if his former province had rebelled against him, giving him no other choice (and no means, incidentally, of fleeing to Britain).


In all translations and interpretations of this passage I have found, it is meant that's the Arborychi, and not the Romans; that had changed their government. It seems quite logical as the later peace is set between them and the Franks, not between the Romans and the Franks.
That's said, it is very commonly quoted that the Arborychi are the Britons settled in Armorica. Arborychi simply means Armoricans, not Bretons. The term would be applied in the first way to the Armorican civitates. In the passage it may have been applied to the Bretons but it is in no way explicit.

At this point it seems important for me to emphasis several points:
- Armorica isn't what is going to be Brittany, it was much larger and did encompass much of western Gaul between Loire and Seine, at least all the coastal part, the famous Tractus armoricanus, and indeed the former tractus would have played a major role against the Franks
- Britons settled only a part of Armorica, that's the westernmost part of it, with some minor settlements outside in the Loire valley and Normandy
- Armorican civitates did reject their roman governement circa AD 410, following the exemple of Britain, this information is given by Zosimes and could be the reference for their "change of government" quoted by Procopius; equally it could have been a reference of the establishment of the Britons in the west
- Armoricans are quoted along Britons (or Letavi) in the coalition of Aetius against Attila by Jordanes in AD 451; they are associated but distinct anyway.

For me, much of northern Gaul save Armorica falls into Clovis' hands after 481 and Syagrius's defeat. Armorica remained, helped by Bretons and possibly by other federates, even Franks. It is much difficult to deduct anything else of our sources. We know no ruler with any degree of certainty before the 6th century in Brittany. It seems that the Armoricans kept anyway an importante power. They had a romano-gallic culture, and it's possible that part of their elite sent word for the Britons to help them against Clovis, but some could have been opposed to them. In the late 6th century for exemple, the bishop of Vannes was more a supporter of the Franks than of the Bretons of Waroch.

_________________
"O niurt Ambrois ri Frangc ocus Brethan Letha."
"Par la force d'Ambrosius roi des Francs et des Bretons d'Armorique."
Morcant map Conmail


Haut
 Profil Envoyer un e-mail  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 11 Jan 2012, 13:41 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 25 Aoû 2011, 14:35
Messages: 81
Localisation: Afrique du Sud
Morcant a écrit:
Citer:
It is clear (to me) that the 'Romans' were the towns of Syagrius's former realm. What is meant by the statement that they had 'changed the government under which they had lived from old?' Note that Syagrius, after his defeat at Soissons, did not seek refuge in one of the towns or fortresses still in Roman hands, but fled to the Visigoths, his erstwhile enemies - a desperate move, and only explicable if his former province had rebelled against him, giving him no other choice (and no means, incidentally, of fleeing to Britain).


In all translations and interpretations of this passage I have found, it is meant that's the Arborychi, and not the Romans; that had changed their government. It seems quite logical as the later peace is set between them and the Franks, not between the Romans and the Franks.
That's said, it is very commonly quoted that the Arborychi are the Britons settled in Armorica. Arborychi simply means Armoricans, not Bretons. The term would be applied in the first way to the Armorican civitates. In the passage it may have been applied to the Bretons but it is in no way explicit.

At this point it seems important for me to emphasis several points:
- Armorica isn't what is going to be Brittany, it was much larger and did encompass much of western Gaul between Loire and Seine, at least all the coastal part, the famous Tractus armoricanus, and indeed the former tractus would have played a major role against the Franks
- Britons settled only a part of Armorica, that's the westernmost part of it, with some minor settlements outside in the Loire valley and Normandy
- Armorican civitates did reject their roman governement circa AD 410, following the exemple of Britain, this information is given by Zosimes and could be the reference for their "change of government" quoted by Procopius; equally it could have been a reference of the establishment of the Britons in the west
- Armoricans are quoted along Britons (or Letavi) in the coalition of Aetius against Attila by Jordanes in AD 451; they are associated but distinct anyway.

For me, much of northern Gaul save Armorica falls into Clovis' hands after 481 and Syagrius's defeat. Armorica remained, helped by Bretons and possibly by other federates, even Franks. It is much difficult to deduct anything else of our sources. We know no ruler with any degree of certainty before the 6th century in Brittany. It seems that the Armoricans kept anyway an importante power. They had a romano-gallic culture, and it's possible that part of their elite sent word for the Britons to help them against Clovis, but some could have been opposed to them. In the late 6th century for exemple, the bishop of Vannes was more a supporter of the Franks than of the Bretons of Waroch.


The only question with this interpretation is - who were the Romans? By 481 the only Roman authority remaining in Gaul was Armorica, under the authority of Syagrius. Syagrius flees the province after his defeat in 486 to his enemies the Visigoths (who later hand him over to the Franks), rather than stay in the yet unconquered area of Armorica between the Seine and the Loire. If the Armoricans were faithful to him why would he do that? With Syagrius gone, who are the Romans to which the Armoricans 'proved their valour and loyalty'? The distant and unconcerned Eastern Emperor?

I think it at least possible that Procopius, who was living far from the events, confused the Bretons with the Armoricans (the name of which he misspelt) in his account of the war between them and the Franks. Or possibly the Bretons had not yet become a people sufficiently established and independent to merit being called by a distinct name. They were located in western Armorica, and so Procopius calls them by the name of the region. Notice that this generalized nomenclature also applies to the Franks, whom Procopius calls 'Germans'.

In the final peace the Roman territory in Armorica is absorbed into the Frankish state and has no distinct status - hence no mention of it. The Arborychi continue to have an independent existence, the nature of which is described by Procopius.

I doubt that the change of government mentioned by Procopius refers to the revolt of 410, as that took place decades before the events described, and in any case was ended by Aetius (using Alans I believe). The passage makes it clear (at least to me) that a more recent secession is being described.

_________________
Auteur de Centurion's Daughter

Mon blog


Haut
 Profil Envoyer un e-mail  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 15 Jan 2012, 01:09 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 09 Nov 2008, 10:52
Messages: 295
Are we sure that the word Arborychoi means the Armorican people ? :mrgreen:

Best.

_________________
André-Yves Bourgès
www.hagio-historiographie-medievale.org


Haut
 Profil  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 15 Jan 2012, 01:26 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 19 Oct 2010, 11:11
Messages: 417
It seems to be an mistake from Procopius..

_________________
Base de données Gaules/Germanies/Mer du nord entre fin de l'empire et fin mérovingiens: http://241-752.forumgratuit.fr/
Francorum 440-580: médiation culturelle et expérimentations: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Francoru ... 3277476941


Haut
 Profil Envoyer un e-mail  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 15 Jan 2012, 11:43 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 09 Nov 2008, 10:52
Messages: 295
Please have a look (by clicking here) on a paper by Jean-Pierre Poly, in particular pp. 297 sq. and footnote 22.

Best from

_________________
André-Yves Bourgès
www.hagio-historiographie-medievale.org


Haut
 Profil  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 15 Jan 2012, 20:12 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 04 Sep 2008, 11:55
Messages: 4297
Localisation: Brest - pagus Legionensis - Civitas Ossismi - Letavia
Thanks André-Yves. I knew about the theory, but never read the paper. It's interesting to see a different reading of Procopius. The main problem is that both those who advanced the "Armorican theory" and the "Bructères" theory are ignorant of each other works. The subject really deserves a new treatment.

For me the pros for the Armoricans are that:
- they are christians, like the Franks which were recently converted at the time they made peace (I guess the conversion of the Bructères may have been a bit later)
- Armorica is really a corner of Gaul, and had its own (maritime) limes
- Armoricans are also quoted by Jordanès as fighting along Aetius against Attila
- soldiers stationned in Armorica weren't far from the Goths in Aquitaine, while those on the germanic limes were really far from them
- Britons themselves also had a history of conflicts with the Wisigoths.

_________________
"O niurt Ambrois ri Frangc ocus Brethan Letha."
"Par la force d'Ambrosius roi des Francs et des Bretons d'Armorique."
Morcant map Conmail


Haut
 Profil Envoyer un e-mail  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 15 Jan 2012, 22:36 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 25 Aoû 2011, 14:35
Messages: 81
Localisation: Afrique du Sud
Many thanks for the input and references.

I'm just wondering if any scholars or authorities interpret the people that the Germans wished to make 'subject to themselves' as the 'Romans' rather than the 'Arborychi'. Notice that when the Germans, or Franks, move against the people they wish to conquer, marching 'against them with their whole people', the Arborychi don't just fight for their existence but 'prove their valour and loyalty to the Romans; i.e. the Franks attack, and the Arborychi rush to fight for the Romans. This context seems to suggest quite clearly that it is the Romans, not the Arborychi, that are attacked by the Franks.

Does the Greek construction necessarily oblige one to interpret 'this people' as Arborychi? In Latin at least, 'this' - 'ille' refers to the last mentioned subject of the previous phrase or sentence (if I'm not mistaken). I don't know if it is the same in Greek.

_________________
Auteur de Centurion's Daughter

Mon blog


Haut
 Profil Envoyer un e-mail  
 
 Sujet du message: Re: The Siege of Paris by Clovis
Nouveau messagePublié: 16 Jan 2012, 00:48 
Hors-ligne
Avatar de l’utilisateur

Inscrit le: 09 Nov 2008, 10:52
Messages: 295
The text of Procopios, based on the materials he collected from Frankish delegates sent, together with Angli, to Justinien by Theodebert, is clearly unclear :evil: :
- on one side, if we accept the "Armorican theory", the localisation is unacceptable.
- on the other side, if we accept the "Bructères theory", we are facing with some of the items Morcant has summarized.

The problem is the same with Brittia and Brittania.

In both case, the easiest solution, but not the fairiest :oops: :oops: , is to conclude that Procopios has been mistaken ; but what about his sources ? What did they really say to him ?

Best from

_________________
André-Yves Bourgès
www.hagio-historiographie-medievale.org


Haut
 Profil  
 
Afficher les messages depuis:  Trier par  
Publier un nouveau sujet Répondre au sujet  [ 25 messages ]  Aller à la page 1, 2  Suivant

Heures au format UTC + 1 heure [ Heure d’été ]


Qui est en ligne ?

Utilisateurs parcourant actuellement ce forum : Aucun utilisateur inscrit et 4 invités


Vous ne pouvez pas publier de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas insérer de pièces jointes dans ce forum

Sauter vers:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Translated by phpBB.fr © 2007, 2008 phpBB.fr
Thème 3myl_sable réalisé par SGo