Talk:County of Toulouse

[Untitled]
There are two Raymond IVs in the list, even without numbering the suggested one. 121.44.82.81 06:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is two fold. First, the traditional numbering, particularly for Raymond IV, appears so broadly in the published literature that major confusion would occur were the Raymonds to be renumbered. Secondly, there is not uniform agreement on how many 'new' Raymonds there are (one or two) or whether they derive from Raymond Pons or instead from Raymond, Count of Rouergue. To help limit confusion, some authors seem to be removing the number from Raymond Pons (traditionally Raymond III), using only his byname to distinguish him, and then applying 'Raymond III' to his successor and (conveniently) choosing a reconstruction with only that one additional Raymond, allowing everything to come back into sinc. However, there really does seem to be two Raymonds between Raymond Pons and his traditional son William III, as shown.Agricolae 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Two issues: the dates need to be brought into harmony. Raymond (III or IV) can't have been count until 978 and also have been succeeded by Hugh in 961. There are two possibilities. We have to add at least one Raymond, but then there are two possibilities. First, that this new Raymond died in 961, and was followed by sons Hugh and Raymond, who died in 978, or alternatively, that the new Raymond lived to 978, and his sons Hugh and Raymond died during his lifetime, and a son born late in life to a new wife, William, succeeded him directly. Most scholarly reconstructions i have seen of him have William son of the younger of the two Raymonds. The 978 succession for the first new Raymond is only valid if he was the only new Raymond. (This is a problem with a summary page - it makes it hard to deal with conflicting reconstructions.)

The second issue is the numbers. Right up until two decades ago, Raymond III of Toulouse was unambiguously used by historians to refer to Raymond Pons, and he appears as such in all works prior to that date. His own Wiki page calls him Raymond III. Thus it is ambiguous to now refer to his son as Raymond III. The name of this son's page needs to name him in some manner that does not allow this confusion with Raymond Pons. We could use dates, as has been suggested for the younger new Raymond, but then that brings us back to the date issue.Agricolae 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would love to engage in debate further, but I want to see references for some of the assertions regarding the "new" Raymonds first. I will do my own research in the meanwhile. Srnec 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The predominant modern view is found in Thierry Stasser, "Adélaïde d'Anjou. Sa famille, ses mariages, sa descendance", Le Moyen Age 103,1 (1997): 9-52; and Christian Settipani, La Noblesse du midi carolingien, Occasional Publiucations of the Unit for Prosopographical Research, Vol. 5. For an alternative reconstruction placing the new counts on a different line, see: Martin de Framond, "La succession des comtes de Toulouse autour de l'an mil(940--1030): reconsidérations", Annales du Midi 204 (1993), pp 461--488 (summarized at http://www.foixstory.com/data/genealogiq/autres/tlse.htm ). Note in particular that Raymond Pons is called Raymond III, as he has been traditionally, and hence using the name Raymond III for his son creates unnecessary confusion. For the information from the Roda Codex see José Maria Lacarra, "Textos navarros del Códice de Roda". Estudios de Edad Media de la Corona de Aragon. 1:194-283 (1945).


 * I hadn't noticed that you had gone and created a page for "Raymond III", but it needs to be renamed in order to disambiguate it, which I will do shortly unless you give me a good reason not to. (The page also presents a sort of fusion of two different theories, having this Raymond marry Adelaide and making him "Prince of Gothia", which was not an inherited title at all, just the phrase used by a chronicler to refer to Adelaide's husband (who was his son, if you accept Stasser and Settipani). Thus there is much to do to achieve NPOV.Agricolae 01:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm. The problem with writing these articles is trying not to advance any given thesis over others where there is no scholarly concensus. Then there is the trouble of bringing all this information down to a general reference level. I know that "Prince of Gothia" (princeps Gothorum) was not really an inherited title in the sense we understand it, though I think an argument could be made that it was passed down in the family in a quasi-hereditary way and that it was not merely a chronicler's device, since it does seem to have been bestowed by the king on (some) occassion(s) and used in official charters. I will continue to research, sadly I don't have any of those reference works. I will look at the Foixstory site. Perhaps you can help unravel some of the stuff at Guerin of Provence?
 * I don't mind if Raymond III is disambiguated, but what is the most reasonably title for the article? Srnec 01:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Can't help much with Guerin - never looked into him much. As to the name of the Ray III page, that is a problem.  Ray III is out because traditionally that was Raymond Pons.  Dates are out because it depends on whether there was one Ray (950-978) or two (950-961, 972-978). I had suggested a parenthetical (son of Raymond Pons) but had forgotten that Framond placed him as son of Raymond of Rouergue (I tend to agree with Stasser and Settipani that the Roda Codex is sufficient to dismiss this solution, but it is out there).  In fact, about the only thing that I think is known unambiguously about him is his appearance in the Codice de Roda, but incorporating that would sure be awkward.  (Speaking of which, I am refering to it so much, I should probably write a page on the Roda document.) I'll think on the Ray III name.Agricolae 03:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The map is futile - yellow colours too similar to be interpreted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.253.138 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Changed the map in something, I think, more simple and more readeable.	LSCatilina (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

memory of toulouse's aquitaineness
The provinciale romanum (a document that listed all bishoprics in the catholic church) listed Bourges and Bordeaux's provinces as "in ducatu aquitaniæ", Aush's as "in wasconia", and Narbon's as "in gothia". Following the creation of an ecclesiastical province for Toulouse by John XXII, some versions of the document insert it after Narbon in Gothia, but most versions instert it between Bourges and Bordeaux, in Aquitaine (thus making the aquitaine of the provinciale precisely match the old kingdom of aquitaine). Is this a sign of Toulouse having still been thought of as an historical part of aquitaine well into the 14th century? ΟυώρντΑρτ (talk) ΟυώρντΑρτ (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)