Talk:Lordship of Argos and Nauplia

Untitled
Choess's edit in 29.5.2005 caused a loss of extensive amount of relevant information. The edit make the situation lose any idea that Dukes of Athens were overlords of lords of Argos-Nauplia. Also, a laboriously collected list (analysis) of whom of the lords were redisent, is now lost. Besides, the list of lords now lacks a few persons who attestedly utilized powers of lord or boverlord in A-N. And, the article now omits totally the fact that Guy d'Enghien and his daughter USED the ducal title. I wait for these losses to be corrected. 62.78.104.183 22:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The titular Dukes of Athens were Sohier (1356-1367), Walter (1367-1381), and then Louis. Guy and his daughter were not, to my knowledge, Dukes of Athens. See, for instance, this German history, which confirms the division of the inheritance among the sons of Isabelle of Brienne and the succession of the Duchy. While the Enghien Dukes of Athens were recognized as Dukes of Athens in Argos and Nauplia, the two cities were fiefs of Achaea and not of Athens. I have moved the list of titular Dukes of Athens to the page on the Duchy of Athens, where it is appropriate, and noted that they were recognized only in Argos and Nauplia. Nor is the information on residency lost, as you would have noticed had you read the text of the article.

If you have information suggesting that Guy and his daughter were ever Dukes of Athens, I suggest you cite that in the Duchy of Athens article. I stand by my edits here as having created a concise article containing all relevant information on the Lordship of Argos and Nauplia, most of the removed material being better suited for the article on the Duchy of Athens.

1. There are evidence lying around that Guy and his daughter Maria used title Duke. A & N in Romania dux. etc. not necessarily always specifying duke of what. Certainly A-N was not a duchy. Whereas the family's Athens undisputedly was. I believe that their title-use was referring, and/or utilizing, Athens title. As such it should be mentioned. Both here and in DAthens article.

2. Regarding vassaldom, you think in too limited way. In Middle Ages, being vassal of one did not necessarily rule out of being vassal of another. Read your history. Thus, A-N could have been vassal of both Athens and Achaia.

3. I remember having seen texts where this younger branch of Enghien is mentioned as having the elder branch of Athens as overlords.

4. Actually, Athens was vassal of achaia. Thus, it was possible, even likely that A-N can have been vassal of athens - and Achaia.

5. How have Roche dukes obtained A-N, if it was not a part if their duchy?? I think A-N was a part, and here a remnant of the duchy. Thus, its lords were vassals of dukes, their own elder branch.

Who were resident, is not mentioned in the article. For example, Sohier was resident in 1350's. Walter his son is mentioned in a way that he also may have lived sometime there.

And, some lords may have been absent. Such as Isabelle.

Please, do not stand too clumsily, as it makes the inevitable fall the worse. 62.78.105.166 23:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)