GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-04 > 1019275963
From: (Stewart Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Heribert of Kinziggau, part 2c
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 04:12:43 GMT
References: <3cba241c.36291934@news.mindspring.com>, <3CBB3B1C.1841@dialup.ptt.ru>
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:42:04 +0400, "Andrew S. Kalinkin"
< > wrote:
>However, this problem is not directly related to the question of parentage
>of Heribert. As Thietmar clearly states that Duke Conrad and Count Heribert
>were brothers, the relationship between Welf and Imiza stands as long as
>stands the identification of Konrad of Swabia with Kuno of Oehningen. This
>identification, however, is not exactly Jackman's idea. It was proposed,
>IIRC, by Armin Wolf in 1980 and seems to be generally accepted. Do you think
>that this identification should be discarded? I am very interested in Kuno
>of Oehningen because of misterious Russian marriage of one of his daughters.
The specific point about consanguinity that I raised was based on
Jackman's scenario as a whole. However, you have a good point that my
own comment is tied to identification Kuno of hningen with Konrad of
Swabia, and that the parentage of Konrad is not directly relevant to
this comment.
Unfortunately, I only copied the pages from Jackman that discussed
Heribert's parentage, and this only includes some of the pages which
discuss the identification of Kuno with Konrad. Also, I have not seen
Wolf's work on Kuno. Of the pages of Jackman's argument that I did
copy, I found the arguments generally unconvincing. One obvious
negative point (which Jackman explains away as deliberate
falsification) is that no Hermann is included in the list of Kuno's
sons in the major sources (i.e., the Welf histories) that mention him.
Stewart Baldwin
This thread:
| Re: Heribert of Kinziggau, part 2c by (Stewart Baldwin) |