Talk:Barony of Arcadia

Chronological problem
There is a contradiction between the alledged date of death of Erard II (c 1338) and the claim that his (supposed) widow Balzana Gozzadini should have transmitted half of the baronny as her dower to her (attested) husband Pietro dalle Carceri, since this Pietro is mentionned as lord of half of Arkadia already in June 1324 (in fact these marital hypothesis is made to explain this mention). Even Hopf (source of Bon for this part) writes that this widow was perhaps Balzana (GG in Ersch and Gruber vol 85 p 409 here). I could not find where this date of (before) 1338 comes from (no clear source in Bon), though it is frequently found (without source afaik) in many books.--Phso2 (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, thanks for pointing this out, I didn't catch on to this discrepancy, although I should have... Any ideas? I could replace the section in question with "On his death Erard II left his half of the barony to his widow, Balzana Gozzadini, who took a second husband, Peter dalle Carceri, Triarch of Negroponte. Balzana died soon after. Erard II's death is usually placed some time before 1338, but Peter dalle Carceri is recorded as in control of half of the barony already in 1324.", but that would simply perplex any reader (not to mention me). Since you probably have access to more sources than I do, could you check what others write on this? Constantine  ✍  11:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You are not no blame, this seems to be the usual mess with Hopf-based historiography alas, we are only experiencing what induced Loenertz to write "the Ghisi" and numerous articles, to point out the urge not to trust Hopf by word... I found the origin of the "before 1338", it's in another work by Hopf, the genalogical tables at the end of "Chroniques greco-romanes inedites ou peu connues" p 472 (here). As usual, there isn't any explanation nor source for the dates given, but it could probably result from the fact that Erard III is mentioned as lord of Arkadia from 1338, which means automaticly that his predecessor was dead at this date.
 * The problem is that we enter OR here : i don't have any other source about this that you don't have (except a mention of Balzana beeing alive in 1343, acting as regent for her son with Pietro in Euboea, in "the Ghisi") and i don't know of any scholar having discussed this (minor) problem (they accept "1338" or "before 1338" without discussion : Shawcross, Bon, Lock for example). Personnaly, I would say that all this acrobatic genealogical hypothetical construction was only built to explain the mention of Pietro as lord of Arkadia : as we know he was married with Balzana, Hopf guessed (he writes "vielleicht" - perhaps) 1)that he could perhaps have married the widow of Erard, and guessed again 2)that this widow was perhaps Balzana (again "vielleicht"). Then these hypotheses are solidified as facts in the genealogical tables and are accepted without control by subsequent writers (because Hopf's works were so fundamental in the developpment of Greek mediaeval history). But it could be (my guess) that Pietro acquired the half of the baronny by another (unknown) mean (and didn't marry Erard widow, which need no more to be Balzana) and that Erard II must have been already dead at this time-1324 (or could have sold half his baronny?), or that Pietro wasn't at all lord of Arkadia (the name of the fief is conserved only in a later summary of the original 1324 charter (lost in 1945 destruction of Napolitean archive) and is "Arochade"). Another strange thing is that this 1324 charter was the base of another Hopfean hypothesis (presented as fact), that is Pietro married one daughter of George II Ghisi and acquired thus the half of Chalandritsa - same mechanism of explanation, but he can't be lord of two fiefs in the name of two spouses at the same time...In conclusion : we don't know how Pietro became lord of Arkadia (if he really was) but at any rate Hopf's explanation doesn't appear very solid to say the least. But as I said all this cannot be written in the article, since this is OR or at least Original synthesis.--Phso2 (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)