Talk:Immo (Lotharingian count)

Wikipedia will eventually need to handle the several Emmos of the period who might be several people
Another one is this one: Ehrenfrid, son of Ricfrid. Hein Jongbloed argues it is the same person.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In case not clear, these alternating Ezzonids with the right name are the 10th century ones: Erenfried I, Erenfried II, Ezzo, Count Palatine of Lotharingia. Especially the middle one seems to merge with the other two in secondary sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For reference, "listige Immo" (as Jongbloed likes to call him in German) of Widukind, who rebelled and changed sides many times, is in Latin "versutum et callidum nimis". Google says this means "very crafty and shrewd". Bachrach's English editions gives "acute and exceptionally sly". It would be great to have an article called "Crafty Immo" but not sure we can do that. This rebel is claimed by Dutch speakers as the son of Ricfried, and by German writers as the Ezzonid, but he might need to be handled in this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This article seems to result from confusion
This will need to be parsed carefully, or maybe just deleted. The article describes a man in the 800s, and then a man in the 900s (presumably the one who was son of Ehremfried). I suggest whoever solves this (if not me) should therefore look carefully at "what links here" to keep the damage to a minimum.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposals
I intend to change this article a lot. Comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many things in the article are WP:OR and/or confused, so some deletions will be needed. If anyone actually watches this article, please explain anything you need to explain (but work can always be recovered even if we make a mistake).
 * My interpretation of what could hold this article together, looking at "What links here", what is handled already in other articles, and the sources and so on, is all the sightings of Ehrenfrieds/ Irimfrids and Emmos or Immos in the Hesbaye/Liège/Maas area in the mid to late 10th century. (Baerten separated long and short form names as two people, but no-one seems to agree that this is correct anymore. Anyway, that can be explained.) The sources all seem to agree there is an interesting person or persons (that can be left open), but they disagree exactly how they link to the various key families they probably link to.
 * My proposed approach to pursue this theme is to describe (section 1) the various documents historians link to this person/persons, and (section 2) the interpretations and speculations made by various historians about those.

DRAFT LIST
I'll keep collecting--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC) I have started by collecting sources Jongbloed considers unallocated to the Eremfried/Immo he feels more certain about, the crafty one discussed by Widukind of Corvery. But we need to consider that because I think Jongbloed can not be considered to have created a new consensus about that matter.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Yes, I can see that Jongbloed's way of cutting off crafty Immo in 965 is probably never going to get many followers. (It is based on the end of his advocacy at Stavelot, but he says himself this must have happened when the man above him in that position, Bruno the Great, died.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 939. Battle of Andernach. Crafty count Immo.
 * 950s. Ehrenfried Count of Huy
 * 961. (see 964) Jongbloed 2009 p.24 asks who is the relative (compater) Ermenfried (not called a count) of the Abbot of Gembloux Erluin who exchanged properties. Ermenfried swapped possessions in Hesbaye for a church. MGH SS folio VIII p.529
 * 20 Apr 963. (see 967, 981 with Herman, a typical Ezzonid name) Jongbloed 2009 p.23. Grant in Liège. Robert count of Namur signed first and after him counts Giselbert (Ardennengouw?), Folcwin (Huy?), Emmo and Herman. Miraeus-Foppens Vol III p.294
 * 964, (see 961) Jongbloed 2009 p.24 says that the advocatus (voogd) of Gembloux, a Goderan, seems to have had a son Erenfried with his wife Adelinde (not called a count). MGH SS folio VIII p.530 Aarts wonders if this local boy might have later become a count in Hespengouw.
 * In 966, a charter states that Rudolf’s property at Gelmen (between St Truiden and Borgloon) had been confiscated because of his infidelity and was now in the county of Werner in the pagus of Hesbaye. Immo receives Galmina. (MGH DD Otto I p.430) Baerten: "date du 17 janvier 966 et concerne un échange de biens situés dans le Luihgau (comté de Richard), dans le pagus de Moilla (comté d'Eremfrid) et dans l'Avelgau (comté d'Evrard [Ezzonen]) contre Jamine, un village du pagus de Hesbaye (comté de Garnier). Ce n'est pas ce dernier qui acquiert la villa de Galmina mais le comte Emmon" (So here there was an Eremfried and an Immo. Jongbloed 2009 p.24 also believes that. He says Kurth, Vanderkindere and Nonn all think Immo is the crafty count described by Widukind of Corvey. Probably the other one in the Muhlgau is a member of the Ezzonids?)
 * 967. (see 963, 968) Eremfridus, Herman, Reynerus and Rodulfus, appear as first witnesses in a grant by Bertha, the mother of a Count Arnulf, of land in Brustem to St Truiden. The charter is known from a later confirmation in the Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Trond Piot edition, Volume 1, p.72.
 * 968. (see 963, 967 with Herman) Baerten: "Dezelfde graaf [Emmo in 966] treedt, twee jaar later, ook nog op als voogd van Meerssen, een Maaslands domein van de Sint Remigiusabdij" [Footnote: "VANDERKINDERE (dl. m, blz. 267) schrijft aan Emmo de titel van graaf in Haspengouw en Maasgouw toe op grond van een schenking van Meerssen, Klimmen, Lith, Angleur en Herten (BERNARD, c., op.cit. blz. 222). In feite heeft die laatste toponiem niets gemeen met het gelijknamige dorp gelegen in de omgeving van Loon maar wel met een villa gelegen bij Roermond (cfr. ons artikel B.T.F. G., dl. XLIII, 196s, blz. 1232)."] charter or here (the second link has commentary) This Emmo appears in a royal grant signed in Echt. He and Count Ansfried in a special position. (Reminds of the situation after 939.) He is Voogd to the lord abbot Hugo.
 * 981. Jongbloed p.25 "Herman or Immo" had to supply 60 armored riders to the Liège bishop for Italy. (Indiculus loricatorum p.633. MGH Const I 436)
 * In a charter made in Capua, 26 July 982, "on the day that we fight the Saracens" Otto II certified that if a certain "Cunradus, son of the late count Rudolf" died, he wanted his possessions in Lotharingia to go to Gorze Abbey, and these included "curtis Velm in pago Haspongowe et in comitate Eremfridi comitis". (MGH DD Otto II p.326) In the Battle of Cotrone itself (13 July 982, so it had already happened) it seems that both this Conrad, and this count Eremfried, lost their lives. Velm, now part of St Truiden, did come under Gorze Abbey, and a Count Irimfrid was recorded as dieing. (MGH SS folio XIII 205 Annales necrologici Fuldenses). Also see how Conrad is remembered in Gorze itself:.

Article name
I think the article name should eventually change. The connection to the Hesbaye/Haspengouw is not one of the things all authors agree on, and even for those that do, it is only relating to a small part of his later life. According to Jean Baerten by the way, the idea to name him Emmo of Haspengouw/Hesbaye comes from a 19th century index entry which Kurth picked up and liked, and apparently Vanderkindere got it from him. Dümmler, E. and R. Köpke, Kaiser Otto der Grosse, (Leipzig 1876) 603: ‘Immo, Gr. im Haspengau’. What should the name be though? Count Emmo in Lotharingia? Emmo, tenth century Lotharingian count?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe Immo, Lotharingian nobleman. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Immo (Lotharingian count) would be most in line with the MOS, I think. Article titles should generally not begin with honorifics. Srnec (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you prefer that then OK. OTOH I think "count" can be seen as part of the way some people were named in this period, rather than being a title as such (attached to a particular function or bit of land, which is what I suppose people assume), and moving things into brackets does not seem perfect, so some sort of imperfect decision is needed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)