Discussion:
Yaroslav's age and motherhood
(too old to reply)
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-17 00:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
taf
2020-05-17 02:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
Without learning Russian to evaluate the 1930s paper, I would say two things. One is that the determination of age from adult bones is not as precise as it was thought to be in the 1930s. The second is that when they opened up a tomb in England a while back they found that most of the bones there did not belong to the same individual, and many did not belong to the same species - apparently relic collectors had substituted other bones for ones they had surreptitiously taken, so are we really certain they were looking at the right bones? So, I would approach this with extreme caution.

taf
Peter Stewart
2020-05-17 08:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.

Perhaps you will find some useful information and sources cited here:

http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda

http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-17 09:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1
Peter Stewart
I know that the Primary Chronicle makes Yaroslav Rogneda's son but, according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, at the same time, it makes him a decade younger than other accounts.
Regardless, I think there's a reason Yaroslav's age and motherhood would have been changed by the chronicles. They may have wanted to strengthen Yaroslav's succession, considering that he probably was one of Vladimir's youngest children and maybe even illegitimate.
Peter Stewart
2020-05-17 10:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1
Peter Stewart
I know that the Primary Chronicle makes Yaroslav Rogneda's son but, according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, at the same time, it makes him a decade younger than other accounts.
Regardless, I think there's a reason Yaroslav's age and motherhood would have been changed by the chronicles. They may have wanted to strengthen Yaroslav's succession, considering that he probably was one of Vladimir's youngest children and maybe even illegitimate.
If your rationale for considering these possibilities boils down to an
old and dubious study of some bones and what you read on a Wikipedia
page you may be on a hiding to nothing.

The Wiki page actually says: "He was one of the numerous sons of
Vladimir the Great, presumably his second by Rogneda of Polotsk,
although his actual age (as stated in the Primary Chronicle and
corroborated by the examination of his skeleton in the 1930s) would
place him among the youngest children of Vladimir." There is no reason
he could not be one of his father's youngest children and a son of
Rogneda born by ca 990. We don't know the precise chronology of his
father's various unions - the youngest child appears to have been
Dobronega who married Kasimir I of Poland. You may as well speculate
that the Primary chronicle was trying to cover up that the unions with
Rogneda and Anna Porphyrogeneta were overlapping.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-17 21:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1
Peter Stewart
I know that the Primary Chronicle makes Yaroslav Rogneda's son but, according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, at the same time, it makes him a decade younger than other accounts.
Regardless, I think there's a reason Yaroslav's age and motherhood would have been changed by the chronicles. They may have wanted to strengthen Yaroslav's succession, considering that he probably was one of Vladimir's youngest children and maybe even illegitimate.
If your rationale for considering these possibilities boils down to an
old and dubious study of some bones and what you read on a Wikipedia
page you may be on a hiding to nothing.
The Wiki page actually says: "He was one of the numerous sons of
Vladimir the Great, presumably his second by Rogneda of Polotsk,
although his actual age (as stated in the Primary Chronicle and
corroborated by the examination of his skeleton in the 1930s) would
place him among the youngest children of Vladimir." There is no reason
he could not be one of his father's youngest children and a son of
Rogneda born by ca 990. We don't know the precise chronology of his
father's various unions - the youngest child appears to have been
Dobronega who married Kasimir I of Poland. You may as well speculate
that the Primary chronicle was trying to cover up that the unions with
Rogneda and Anna Porphyrogeneta were overlapping.
Peter Stewart
Thing is, while Yaroslav's marriages' dates are uncertain, IIRC, it's clear that he had already divorced Rogneda by 990. Also, Orthodox Christianity doesn't allow polygamy.
John Higgins
2020-05-17 23:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1
Peter Stewart
I know that the Primary Chronicle makes Yaroslav Rogneda's son but, according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, at the same time, it makes him a decade younger than other accounts.
Regardless, I think there's a reason Yaroslav's age and motherhood would have been changed by the chronicles. They may have wanted to strengthen Yaroslav's succession, considering that he probably was one of Vladimir's youngest children and maybe even illegitimate.
If your rationale for considering these possibilities boils down to an
old and dubious study of some bones and what you read on a Wikipedia
page you may be on a hiding to nothing.
The Wiki page actually says: "He was one of the numerous sons of
Vladimir the Great, presumably his second by Rogneda of Polotsk,
although his actual age (as stated in the Primary Chronicle and
corroborated by the examination of his skeleton in the 1930s) would
place him among the youngest children of Vladimir." There is no reason
he could not be one of his father's youngest children and a son of
Rogneda born by ca 990. We don't know the precise chronology of his
father's various unions - the youngest child appears to have been
Dobronega who married Kasimir I of Poland. You may as well speculate
that the Primary chronicle was trying to cover up that the unions with
Rogneda and Anna Porphyrogeneta were overlapping.
Peter Stewart
Thing is, while Yaroslav's marriages' dates are uncertain, IIRC, it's clear that he had already divorced Rogneda by 990. Also, Orthodox Christianity doesn't allow polygamy.
I assume you mean Vladimir, not Yaroslav. And polygamy was not an issue until after he converted to Orthodox Christianity - at which point he is said to have divorced or disposed of all of his previous wives or concubines.

Most or all of this is just speculation, anyway - hardly worth discussing at all...
Peter Stewart
2020-05-18 00:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1
Peter Stewart
I know that the Primary Chronicle makes Yaroslav Rogneda's son but, according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, at the same time, it makes him a decade younger than other accounts.
Regardless, I think there's a reason Yaroslav's age and motherhood would have been changed by the chronicles. They may have wanted to strengthen Yaroslav's succession, considering that he probably was one of Vladimir's youngest children and maybe even illegitimate.
If your rationale for considering these possibilities boils down to an
old and dubious study of some bones and what you read on a Wikipedia
page you may be on a hiding to nothing.
The Wiki page actually says: "He was one of the numerous sons of
Vladimir the Great, presumably his second by Rogneda of Polotsk,
although his actual age (as stated in the Primary Chronicle and
corroborated by the examination of his skeleton in the 1930s) would
place him among the youngest children of Vladimir." There is no reason
he could not be one of his father's youngest children and a son of
Rogneda born by ca 990. We don't know the precise chronology of his
father's various unions - the youngest child appears to have been
Dobronega who married Kasimir I of Poland. You may as well speculate
that the Primary chronicle was trying to cover up that the unions with
Rogneda and Anna Porphyrogeneta were overlapping.
Peter Stewart
Thing is, while Yaroslav's marriages' dates are uncertain, IIRC, it's clear that he had already divorced Rogneda by 990. Also, Orthodox Christianity doesn't allow polygamy.
I assume you mean Vladimir, not Yaroslav. And polygamy was not an issue until after he converted to Orthodox Christianity - at which point he is said to have divorced or disposed of all of his previous wives or concubines.
Most or all of this is just speculation, anyway - hardly worth discussing at all...
Quite right - a conviction that Vladimir actually observed Orthodox
strictures on marriage in his private dalliances is a romantic departure
from common-sense realism. Those share in the Brooklyn Bridge that I
mentioned before are still available.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-05-18 00:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1
Peter Stewart
I know that the Primary Chronicle makes Yaroslav Rogneda's son but, according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, at the same time, it makes him a decade younger than other accounts.
Regardless, I think there's a reason Yaroslav's age and motherhood would have been changed by the chronicles. They may have wanted to strengthen Yaroslav's succession, considering that he probably was one of Vladimir's youngest children and maybe even illegitimate.
If your rationale for considering these possibilities boils down to an
old and dubious study of some bones and what you read on a Wikipedia
page you may be on a hiding to nothing.
The Wiki page actually says: "He was one of the numerous sons of
Vladimir the Great, presumably his second by Rogneda of Polotsk,
although his actual age (as stated in the Primary Chronicle and
corroborated by the examination of his skeleton in the 1930s) would
place him among the youngest children of Vladimir." There is no reason
he could not be one of his father's youngest children and a son of
Rogneda born by ca 990. We don't know the precise chronology of his
father's various unions - the youngest child appears to have been
Dobronega who married Kasimir I of Poland. You may as well speculate
that the Primary chronicle was trying to cover up that the unions with
Rogneda and Anna Porphyrogeneta were overlapping.
Peter Stewart
Thing is, while Yaroslav's marriages' dates are uncertain, IIRC, it's clear that he had already divorced Rogneda by 990. Also, Orthodox Christianity doesn't allow polygamy.
By the way, your recollection is inaccurate as it is not at all clear
that a divorce had taken place by 990. Rogneda became a nun (taking the
name Anastasia) at some point before her death, but we don't know for
sure when she died and this is usually put a decade later than 990.

Vladimir's recorded son by Anna Porphyrogeneta was baptised as
Constantine, an obvious deference to her Byzantine origin. Yaroslav
however was baptised Yuri, which hardly supports the speculation that
Anna may have been his mother.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-05-18 03:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Vladimir's recorded son by Anna Porphyrogeneta was baptised as
Constantine, an obvious deference to her Byzantine origin. Yaroslav
however was baptised Yuri, which hardly supports the speculation that
Anna may have been his mother.
This should read: "Vladimir's most likely son by Anna ..."

According to the Primary chronicle, his mother was an unnamed woman
rather than specifically Anna.

As judiciously noted by Christian Raffensperger on one of the webpages
linked before, "Rogněda is the only one of Volodimer's pagan wives to
rate a separate story, including the title "wife" in the chronicles, and
there is, most likely, a very simple reason for this — Rogněda was the
mother of Jaroslav "Mudryi." It would be better in the worldview of the
Christian chroniclers were Jaroslav to have been born of a wedded
couple, rather than of Volodimer and one of his many concubines. Whether
he actually took her as wife, mistress, or concubine or if he would have
even distinguished between the three is impossible to know at this
remove with the documents available."

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-18 10:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1
Peter Stewart
I know that the Primary Chronicle makes Yaroslav Rogneda's son but, according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, at the same time, it makes him a decade younger than other accounts.
Regardless, I think there's a reason Yaroslav's age and motherhood would have been changed by the chronicles. They may have wanted to strengthen Yaroslav's succession, considering that he probably was one of Vladimir's youngest children and maybe even illegitimate.
If your rationale for considering these possibilities boils down to an
old and dubious study of some bones and what you read on a Wikipedia
page you may be on a hiding to nothing.
The Wiki page actually says: "He was one of the numerous sons of
Vladimir the Great, presumably his second by Rogneda of Polotsk,
although his actual age (as stated in the Primary Chronicle and
corroborated by the examination of his skeleton in the 1930s) would
place him among the youngest children of Vladimir." There is no reason
he could not be one of his father's youngest children and a son of
Rogneda born by ca 990. We don't know the precise chronology of his
father's various unions - the youngest child appears to have been
Dobronega who married Kasimir I of Poland. You may as well speculate
that the Primary chronicle was trying to cover up that the unions with
Rogneda and Anna Porphyrogeneta were overlapping.
Peter Stewart
Thing is, while Yaroslav's marriages' dates are uncertain, IIRC, it's clear that he had already divorced Rogneda by 990. Also, Orthodox Christianity doesn't allow polygamy.
By the way, your recollection is inaccurate as it is not at all clear
that a divorce had taken place by 990. Rogneda became a nun (taking the
name Anastasia) at some point before her death, but we don't know for
sure when she died and this is usually put a decade later than 990.
Vladimir's recorded son by Anna Porphyrogeneta was baptised as
Constantine, an obvious deference to her Byzantine origin. Yaroslav
however was baptised Yuri, which hardly supports the speculation that
Anna may have been his mother.
Peter Stewart
Even if Yaroslav wasn't Rogneda's son, he could have been son of a mistress. Regardless, it should be noted that he had a daughter named Anne, which might support the idea of him being son of Anne Porphyrogenita.
Peter Stewart
2020-05-18 10:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1
Peter Stewart
I know that the Primary Chronicle makes Yaroslav Rogneda's son but, according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, at the same time, it makes him a decade younger than other accounts.
Regardless, I think there's a reason Yaroslav's age and motherhood would have been changed by the chronicles. They may have wanted to strengthen Yaroslav's succession, considering that he probably was one of Vladimir's youngest children and maybe even illegitimate.
If your rationale for considering these possibilities boils down to an
old and dubious study of some bones and what you read on a Wikipedia
page you may be on a hiding to nothing.
The Wiki page actually says: "He was one of the numerous sons of
Vladimir the Great, presumably his second by Rogneda of Polotsk,
although his actual age (as stated in the Primary Chronicle and
corroborated by the examination of his skeleton in the 1930s) would
place him among the youngest children of Vladimir." There is no reason
he could not be one of his father's youngest children and a son of
Rogneda born by ca 990. We don't know the precise chronology of his
father's various unions - the youngest child appears to have been
Dobronega who married Kasimir I of Poland. You may as well speculate
that the Primary chronicle was trying to cover up that the unions with
Rogneda and Anna Porphyrogeneta were overlapping.
Peter Stewart
Thing is, while Yaroslav's marriages' dates are uncertain, IIRC, it's clear that he had already divorced Rogneda by 990. Also, Orthodox Christianity doesn't allow polygamy.
By the way, your recollection is inaccurate as it is not at all clear
that a divorce had taken place by 990. Rogneda became a nun (taking the
name Anastasia) at some point before her death, but we don't know for
sure when she died and this is usually put a decade later than 990.
Vladimir's recorded son by Anna Porphyrogeneta was baptised as
Constantine, an obvious deference to her Byzantine origin. Yaroslav
however was baptised Yuri, which hardly supports the speculation that
Anna may have been his mother.
Peter Stewart
Even if Yaroslav wasn't Rogneda's son, he could have been son of a mistress. Regardless, it should be noted that he had a daughter named Anne, which might support the idea of him being son of Anne Porphyrogenita.
And he had a daughter older than her named Anastasia, which was the name
taken in religion by Rogneda.

By the same token, Vladimir had a son (St Boris, explicitly the son of a
Bulgarian mother) who was baptised as Roman, that was the name of Anna
Porphyrogenneta's father. So what? Several of the early Norman dukes
named daughters after wives that were definitely not their mothers. This
is said to have been a Norse custom, making it hardly a surprise to find
in the same period in Rus.

You keep putting forward arguments vaccuum, as if whatever crosses your
mind has no context and needs no further study. The goodwill of the
newsgroup towards this sloppy habit is not likely to be endless.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-18 10:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1
Peter Stewart
I know that the Primary Chronicle makes Yaroslav Rogneda's son but, according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, at the same time, it makes him a decade younger than other accounts.
Regardless, I think there's a reason Yaroslav's age and motherhood would have been changed by the chronicles. They may have wanted to strengthen Yaroslav's succession, considering that he probably was one of Vladimir's youngest children and maybe even illegitimate.
If your rationale for considering these possibilities boils down to an
old and dubious study of some bones and what you read on a Wikipedia
page you may be on a hiding to nothing.
The Wiki page actually says: "He was one of the numerous sons of
Vladimir the Great, presumably his second by Rogneda of Polotsk,
although his actual age (as stated in the Primary Chronicle and
corroborated by the examination of his skeleton in the 1930s) would
place him among the youngest children of Vladimir." There is no reason
he could not be one of his father's youngest children and a son of
Rogneda born by ca 990. We don't know the precise chronology of his
father's various unions - the youngest child appears to have been
Dobronega who married Kasimir I of Poland. You may as well speculate
that the Primary chronicle was trying to cover up that the unions with
Rogneda and Anna Porphyrogeneta were overlapping.
Peter Stewart
Thing is, while Yaroslav's marriages' dates are uncertain, IIRC, it's clear that he had already divorced Rogneda by 990. Also, Orthodox Christianity doesn't allow polygamy.
By the way, your recollection is inaccurate as it is not at all clear
that a divorce had taken place by 990. Rogneda became a nun (taking the
name Anastasia) at some point before her death, but we don't know for
sure when she died and this is usually put a decade later than 990.
Vladimir's recorded son by Anna Porphyrogeneta was baptised as
Constantine, an obvious deference to her Byzantine origin. Yaroslav
however was baptised Yuri, which hardly supports the speculation that
Anna may have been his mother.
Peter Stewart
Even if Yaroslav wasn't Rogneda's son, he could have been son of a mistress. Regardless, it should be noted that he had a daughter named Anne, which might support the idea of him being son of Anne Porphyrogenita.
And he had a daughter older than her named Anastasia, which was the name
taken in religion by Rogneda.
By the same token, Vladimir had a son (St Boris, explicitly the son of a
Bulgarian mother) who was baptised as Roman, that was the name of Anna
Porphyrogenneta's father. So what? Several of the early Norman dukes
named daughters after wives that were definitely not their mothers. This
is said to have been a Norse custom, making it hardly a surprise to find
in the same period in Rus.
You keep putting forward arguments vaccuum, as if whatever crosses your
mind has no context and needs no further study. The goodwill of the
newsgroup towards this sloppy habit is not likely to be endless.
Peter Stewart
I wrote "might". I didn't say that it certainly supported such a motherhood.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-18 11:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1
Peter Stewart
I know that the Primary Chronicle makes Yaroslav Rogneda's son but, according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, at the same time, it makes him a decade younger than other accounts.
Regardless, I think there's a reason Yaroslav's age and motherhood would have been changed by the chronicles. They may have wanted to strengthen Yaroslav's succession, considering that he probably was one of Vladimir's youngest children and maybe even illegitimate.
If your rationale for considering these possibilities boils down to an
old and dubious study of some bones and what you read on a Wikipedia
page you may be on a hiding to nothing.
The Wiki page actually says: "He was one of the numerous sons of
Vladimir the Great, presumably his second by Rogneda of Polotsk,
although his actual age (as stated in the Primary Chronicle and
corroborated by the examination of his skeleton in the 1930s) would
place him among the youngest children of Vladimir." There is no reason
he could not be one of his father's youngest children and a son of
Rogneda born by ca 990. We don't know the precise chronology of his
father's various unions - the youngest child appears to have been
Dobronega who married Kasimir I of Poland. You may as well speculate
that the Primary chronicle was trying to cover up that the unions with
Rogneda and Anna Porphyrogeneta were overlapping.
Peter Stewart
Thing is, while Yaroslav's marriages' dates are uncertain, IIRC, it's clear that he had already divorced Rogneda by 990. Also, Orthodox Christianity doesn't allow polygamy.
By the way, your recollection is inaccurate as it is not at all clear
that a divorce had taken place by 990. Rogneda became a nun (taking the
name Anastasia) at some point before her death, but we don't know for
sure when she died and this is usually put a decade later than 990.
Vladimir's recorded son by Anna Porphyrogeneta was baptised as
Constantine, an obvious deference to her Byzantine origin. Yaroslav
however was baptised Yuri, which hardly supports the speculation that
Anna may have been his mother.
Peter Stewart
Even if Yaroslav wasn't Rogneda's son, he could have been son of a mistress. Regardless, it should be noted that he had a daughter named Anne, which might support the idea of him being son of Anne Porphyrogenita.
And he had a daughter older than her named Anastasia, which was the name
taken in religion by Rogneda.
By the same token, Vladimir had a son (St Boris, explicitly the son of a
Bulgarian mother) who was baptised as Roman, that was the name of Anna
Porphyrogenneta's father. So what? Several of the early Norman dukes
named daughters after wives that were definitely not their mothers. This
is said to have been a Norse custom, making it hardly a surprise to find
in the same period in Rus.
You keep putting forward arguments vaccuum, as if whatever crosses your
mind has no context and needs no further study. The goodwill of the
newsgroup towards this sloppy habit is not likely to be endless.
Peter Stewart
Also, I don't wish to start a fight, but, a few days ago, you criticized me for only addressing a certain part of another post. You did the exact same thing in this post. In addition, I feel slightly offended by your last remark.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-18 11:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1
Peter Stewart
I know that the Primary Chronicle makes Yaroslav Rogneda's son but, according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, at the same time, it makes him a decade younger than other accounts.
Regardless, I think there's a reason Yaroslav's age and motherhood would have been changed by the chronicles. They may have wanted to strengthen Yaroslav's succession, considering that he probably was one of Vladimir's youngest children and maybe even illegitimate.
If your rationale for considering these possibilities boils down to an
old and dubious study of some bones and what you read on a Wikipedia
page you may be on a hiding to nothing.
The Wiki page actually says: "He was one of the numerous sons of
Vladimir the Great, presumably his second by Rogneda of Polotsk,
although his actual age (as stated in the Primary Chronicle and
corroborated by the examination of his skeleton in the 1930s) would
place him among the youngest children of Vladimir." There is no reason
he could not be one of his father's youngest children and a son of
Rogneda born by ca 990. We don't know the precise chronology of his
father's various unions - the youngest child appears to have been
Dobronega who married Kasimir I of Poland. You may as well speculate
that the Primary chronicle was trying to cover up that the unions with
Rogneda and Anna Porphyrogeneta were overlapping.
Peter Stewart
Thing is, while Yaroslav's marriages' dates are uncertain, IIRC, it's clear that he had already divorced Rogneda by 990. Also, Orthodox Christianity doesn't allow polygamy.
By the way, your recollection is inaccurate as it is not at all clear
that a divorce had taken place by 990. Rogneda became a nun (taking the
name Anastasia) at some point before her death, but we don't know for
sure when she died and this is usually put a decade later than 990.
Vladimir's recorded son by Anna Porphyrogeneta was baptised as
Constantine, an obvious deference to her Byzantine origin. Yaroslav
however was baptised Yuri, which hardly supports the speculation that
Anna may have been his mother.
Peter Stewart
Even if Yaroslav wasn't Rogneda's son, he could have been son of a mistress. Regardless, it should be noted that he had a daughter named Anne, which might support the idea of him being son of Anne Porphyrogenita.
And he had a daughter older than her named Anastasia, which was the name
taken in religion by Rogneda.
By the same token, Vladimir had a son (St Boris, explicitly the son of a
Bulgarian mother) who was baptised as Roman, that was the name of Anna
Porphyrogenneta's father. So what? Several of the early Norman dukes
named daughters after wives that were definitely not their mothers. This
is said to have been a Norse custom, making it hardly a surprise to find
in the same period in Rus.
You keep putting forward arguments vaccuum, as if whatever crosses your
mind has no context and needs no further study. The goodwill of the
newsgroup towards this sloppy habit is not likely to be endless.
Peter Stewart
Also, I don't wish to start a fight, but, a few days ago, you criticized me for only addressing a certain part of another post. You did the exact same thing in this post. In addition, I feel slightly offended by your last remark.
To clarify, you addressed the issue of the name Anne but did not address the idea that Yaroslav may have been illegitimate.
Peter Stewart
2020-05-18 13:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1
Peter Stewart
I know that the Primary Chronicle makes Yaroslav Rogneda's son but, according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, at the same time, it makes him a decade younger than other accounts.
Regardless, I think there's a reason Yaroslav's age and motherhood would have been changed by the chronicles. They may have wanted to strengthen Yaroslav's succession, considering that he probably was one of Vladimir's youngest children and maybe even illegitimate.
If your rationale for considering these possibilities boils down to an
old and dubious study of some bones and what you read on a Wikipedia
page you may be on a hiding to nothing.
The Wiki page actually says: "He was one of the numerous sons of
Vladimir the Great, presumably his second by Rogneda of Polotsk,
although his actual age (as stated in the Primary Chronicle and
corroborated by the examination of his skeleton in the 1930s) would
place him among the youngest children of Vladimir." There is no reason
he could not be one of his father's youngest children and a son of
Rogneda born by ca 990. We don't know the precise chronology of his
father's various unions - the youngest child appears to have been
Dobronega who married Kasimir I of Poland. You may as well speculate
that the Primary chronicle was trying to cover up that the unions with
Rogneda and Anna Porphyrogeneta were overlapping.
Peter Stewart
Thing is, while Yaroslav's marriages' dates are uncertain, IIRC, it's clear that he had already divorced Rogneda by 990. Also, Orthodox Christianity doesn't allow polygamy.
By the way, your recollection is inaccurate as it is not at all clear
that a divorce had taken place by 990. Rogneda became a nun (taking the
name Anastasia) at some point before her death, but we don't know for
sure when she died and this is usually put a decade later than 990.
Vladimir's recorded son by Anna Porphyrogeneta was baptised as
Constantine, an obvious deference to her Byzantine origin. Yaroslav
however was baptised Yuri, which hardly supports the speculation that
Anna may have been his mother.
Peter Stewart
Even if Yaroslav wasn't Rogneda's son, he could have been son of a mistress. Regardless, it should be noted that he had a daughter named Anne, which might support the idea of him being son of Anne Porphyrogenita.
And he had a daughter older than her named Anastasia, which was the name
taken in religion by Rogneda.
By the same token, Vladimir had a son (St Boris, explicitly the son of a
Bulgarian mother) who was baptised as Roman, that was the name of Anna
Porphyrogenneta's father. So what? Several of the early Norman dukes
named daughters after wives that were definitely not their mothers. This
is said to have been a Norse custom, making it hardly a surprise to find
in the same period in Rus.
You keep putting forward arguments vaccuum, as if whatever crosses your
mind has no context and needs no further study. The goodwill of the
newsgroup towards this sloppy habit is not likely to be endless.
Peter Stewart
Also, I don't wish to start a fight, but, a few days ago, you criticized me for only addressing a certain part of another post. You did the exact same thing in this post. In addition, I feel slightly offended by your last remark.
To clarify, you addressed the issue of the name Anne but did not address the idea that Yaroslav may have been illegitimate.
Did you not bother to read my former post quoting Christian
Raffensperger to precisely this aspect that you wrongly accuse me of
overlooking?

To repeat: "Rogněda is the only one of Volodimer's pagan wives to rate a
separate story, including the title "wife" in the chronicles, and there
is, most likely, a very simple reason for this — Rogněda was the mother
of Jaroslav "Mudryi." It would be better in the worldview of the
Christian chroniclers were Jaroslav to have been born of a wedded
couple, rather than of Volodimer and one of his many concubines. Whether
he actually took her as wife, mistress, or concubine or if he would have
even distinguished between the three is impossible to know at this
remove with the documents available."

Your notion of illegitimacy is anachronistic to the time you are
speculating about. There is no value going over the same ground in every
post just because you can't or won't let go of it.

You can take offense as you please, but so can I.

Your posts are too often irritating because you don't pause to apply
your obvious intelligence to consider if some novel point is really
substantial or just a vacuous quibble.

Indeed this entire thread could be considered a vacuous quibble.
Academics may twiddle their thumbs trying to think of a subject to
publish on, and come up with all sorts of foolishly trumped-up and/or
hyped-up revisionist ideas to elaborate, such as the supposed age of
some bones, but their time-wasting doesn't invariably need to become ours.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-18 13:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Yaroslav the Wise is traditionally considered to have been born around 980 and to have beem Rogneda's son. However,
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_the_Wise#Rise_to_the_throne, the Primary Chronicle and an examination of his skeleton in the 30s indicate that he, actually, was about a decade younger. Thus, he couldn't be son of Rogneda. He must have been illegitimate or son of Anne Porphyrogenita. What do you think of this?
The Russian Primary Chronicle states that Yaroslav was a son of Rogneda,
not implying that he was a decade too old for her to have been his
mother as you represent. I don't see that a hazy supposition from some
bones reputed to be his can be considered strong enough to reject this.
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=rogneda
http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iaroslav1
Peter Stewart
I know that the Primary Chronicle makes Yaroslav Rogneda's son but, according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, at the same time, it makes him a decade younger than other accounts.
Regardless, I think there's a reason Yaroslav's age and motherhood would have been changed by the chronicles. They may have wanted to strengthen Yaroslav's succession, considering that he probably was one of Vladimir's youngest children and maybe even illegitimate.
If your rationale for considering these possibilities boils down to an
old and dubious study of some bones and what you read on a Wikipedia
page you may be on a hiding to nothing.
The Wiki page actually says: "He was one of the numerous sons of
Vladimir the Great, presumably his second by Rogneda of Polotsk,
although his actual age (as stated in the Primary Chronicle and
corroborated by the examination of his skeleton in the 1930s) would
place him among the youngest children of Vladimir." There is no reason
he could not be one of his father's youngest children and a son of
Rogneda born by ca 990. We don't know the precise chronology of his
father's various unions - the youngest child appears to have been
Dobronega who married Kasimir I of Poland. You may as well speculate
that the Primary chronicle was trying to cover up that the unions with
Rogneda and Anna Porphyrogeneta were overlapping.
Peter Stewart
Thing is, while Yaroslav's marriages' dates are uncertain, IIRC, it's clear that he had already divorced Rogneda by 990. Also, Orthodox Christianity doesn't allow polygamy.
By the way, your recollection is inaccurate as it is not at all clear
that a divorce had taken place by 990. Rogneda became a nun (taking the
name Anastasia) at some point before her death, but we don't know for
sure when she died and this is usually put a decade later than 990.
Vladimir's recorded son by Anna Porphyrogeneta was baptised as
Constantine, an obvious deference to her Byzantine origin. Yaroslav
however was baptised Yuri, which hardly supports the speculation that
Anna may have been his mother.
Peter Stewart
Even if Yaroslav wasn't Rogneda's son, he could have been son of a mistress. Regardless, it should be noted that he had a daughter named Anne, which might support the idea of him being son of Anne Porphyrogenita.
And he had a daughter older than her named Anastasia, which was the name
taken in religion by Rogneda.
By the same token, Vladimir had a son (St Boris, explicitly the son of a
Bulgarian mother) who was baptised as Roman, that was the name of Anna
Porphyrogenneta's father. So what? Several of the early Norman dukes
named daughters after wives that were definitely not their mothers. This
is said to have been a Norse custom, making it hardly a surprise to find
in the same period in Rus.
You keep putting forward arguments vaccuum, as if whatever crosses your
mind has no context and needs no further study. The goodwill of the
newsgroup towards this sloppy habit is not likely to be endless.
Peter Stewart
Also, I don't wish to start a fight, but, a few days ago, you criticized me for only addressing a certain part of another post. You did the exact same thing in this post. In addition, I feel slightly offended by your last remark.
To clarify, you addressed the issue of the name Anne but did not address the idea that Yaroslav may have been illegitimate.
Did you not bother to read my former post quoting Christian
Raffensperger to precisely this aspect that you wrongly accuse me of
overlooking?
To repeat: "Rogněda is the only one of Volodimer's pagan wives to rate a
separate story, including the title "wife" in the chronicles, and there
is, most likely, a very simple reason for this — Rogněda was the mother
of Jaroslav "Mudryi." It would be better in the worldview of the
Christian chroniclers were Jaroslav to have been born of a wedded
couple, rather than of Volodimer and one of his many concubines. Whether
he actually took her as wife, mistress, or concubine or if he would have
even distinguished between the three is impossible to know at this
remove with the documents available."
Your notion of illegitimacy is anachronistic to the time you are
speculating about. There is no value going over the same ground in every
post just because you can't or won't let go of it.
You can take offense as you please, but so can I.
Your posts are too often irritating because you don't pause to apply
your obvious intelligence to consider if some novel point is really
substantial or just a vacuous quibble.
Indeed this entire thread could be considered a vacuous quibble.
Academics may twiddle their thumbs trying to think of a subject to
publish on, and come up with all sorts of foolishly trumped-up and/or
hyped-up revisionist ideas to elaborate, such as the supposed age of
some bones, but their time-wasting doesn't invariably need to become ours.
Peter Stewart
I apologize for not having paid attention to the second part of your previous post.
I posted this because while the question of Yaroslav's motherhood had been raised several times before, the examination of skeleton had only been mentioned once, many years ago.
Peter Stewart
2020-05-18 13:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Just possibly it might have occurred to readers that the skeleton waffle only came up once, long ago, because it was considered worthless then and ever since.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-18 13:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Just possibly it might have occurred to readers that the skeleton waffle only came up once, long ago, because it was considered worthless then and ever since.
Peter Stewart
Also, as you noted a few days ago, I have posted many threads about very diverse families. Thus, I'm not sure if I have much else to discuss. What do you think?
John Higgins
2020-05-18 17:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Just possibly it might have occurred to readers that the skeleton waffle only came up once, long ago, because it was considered worthless then and ever since.
Peter Stewart
Also, as you noted a few days ago, I have posted many threads about very diverse families. Thus, I'm not sure if I have much else to discuss. What do you think?
"I'm not sure if I have much else to discuss"? Actually, you ran out of topics which merited any substantive discussion sometime ago. That could be why we're all getting impatient with you...
John Higgins
2020-05-18 17:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Just possibly it might have occurred to readers that the skeleton waffle only came up once, long ago, because it was considered worthless then and ever since.
Peter Stewart
Also, as you noted a few days ago, I have posted many threads about very diverse families. Thus, I'm not sure if I have much else to discuss. What do you think?
"I'm not sure if I have much else to discuss"? Actually, you ran out of topics which merited any substantive discussion some time ago. That could be why some of us are getting impatient with you...
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-18 18:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Just possibly it might have occurred to readers that the skeleton waffle only came up once, long ago, because it was considered worthless then and ever since.
Peter Stewart
Also, as you noted a few days ago, I have posted many threads about very diverse families. Thus, I'm not sure if I have much else to discuss. What do you think?
"I'm not sure if I have much else to discuss"? Actually, you ran out of topics which merited any substantive discussion some time ago. That could be why some of us are getting impatient with you...
Thing is, as Peter once told me, medieval genealogy is an area in which new evidence very rarely surfaces. Thus, I don't think you can blame me for not posting more interesting topics.
Peter Stewart
2020-05-18 22:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Just possibly it might have occurred to readers that the skeleton waffle only came up once, long ago, because it was considered worthless then and ever since.
Peter Stewart
Also, as you noted a few days ago, I have posted many threads about very diverse families. Thus, I'm not sure if I have much else to discuss. What do you think?
I'm sorry, my crotchety response has left unclear what I meant.

The complaint should not have been directed, as it must appear, to your
raising the question in the first place. Since the suggestion about
Yaroslav's maternity from a 1930s study of bones was found on a
Wikipedia page it is certainly worth bringing it up here for discussion.

However, once you had received a helpful reply from taf and then links
to informative and directly relevant commentary by Christian
Raffensperger, you might have reflected that the doubts put forward in
the 1930s were bogus. We simply do not have a neat and fixed chronology
for the unions of Yaroslav's father, and there is nothing known at all
that causes a possible later birthdate to preclude his having been the
son of Rogneda.

You might then have dropped the subject, or acknowledged the weakness of
the case that had been put forward, or else directly addressed the issue
with cogent argument. Instead, you just threw out some scatter-shot
remarks seeming aimed at outer edges of the question, as if these spoke
for themselves and needed to be refuted by others. Whether or not you
mean this, the impression left is that you are impervious to whatever
you may be told here if it doesn't match whatever you came with in the
first place. That is why patience is running thin, as John Higgins warned.

When people take the trouble to post responses to someone of clearly
bright intellect, they do expect a bit of thought to be exercised before
(or preferably instead of) dragging out the subject with pokes and digs
into thin air.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-31 21:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Just possibly it might have occurred to readers that the skeleton waffle only came up once, long ago, because it was considered worthless then and ever since.
Peter Stewart
Also, as you noted a few days ago, I have posted many threads about very diverse families. Thus, I'm not sure if I have much else to discuss. What do you think?
I'm sorry, my crotchety response has left unclear what I meant.
The complaint should not have been directed, as it must appear, to your
raising the question in the first place. Since the suggestion about
Yaroslav's maternity from a 1930s study of bones was found on a
Wikipedia page it is certainly worth bringing it up here for discussion.
However, once you had received a helpful reply from taf and then links
to informative and directly relevant commentary by Christian
Raffensperger, you might have reflected that the doubts put forward in
the 1930s were bogus. We simply do not have a neat and fixed chronology
for the unions of Yaroslav's father, and there is nothing known at all
that causes a possible later birthdate to preclude his having been the
son of Rogneda.
You might then have dropped the subject, or acknowledged the weakness of
the case that had been put forward, or else directly addressed the issue
with cogent argument. Instead, you just threw out some scatter-shot
remarks seeming aimed at outer edges of the question, as if these spoke
for themselves and needed to be refuted by others. Whether or not you
mean this, the impression left is that you are impervious to whatever
you may be told here if it doesn't match whatever you came with in the
first place. That is why patience is running thin, as John Higgins warned.
When people take the trouble to post responses to someone of clearly
bright intellect, they do expect a bit of thought to be exercised before
(or preferably instead of) dragging out the subject with pokes and digs
into thin air.
Peter Stewart
Not to beat up a dead horse, but, to defend myself, I was busy those days and, thus, didn't pay attention to your Raffensperger quote and, for that, I apologize.
Peter Stewart
2020-05-31 22:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Just possibly it might have occurred to readers that the skeleton waffle only came up once, long ago, because it was considered worthless then and ever since.
Peter Stewart
Also, as you noted a few days ago, I have posted many threads about very diverse families. Thus, I'm not sure if I have much else to discuss. What do you think?
I'm sorry, my crotchety response has left unclear what I meant.
The complaint should not have been directed, as it must appear, to your
raising the question in the first place. Since the suggestion about
Yaroslav's maternity from a 1930s study of bones was found on a
Wikipedia page it is certainly worth bringing it up here for discussion.
However, once you had received a helpful reply from taf and then links
to informative and directly relevant commentary by Christian
Raffensperger, you might have reflected that the doubts put forward in
the 1930s were bogus. We simply do not have a neat and fixed chronology
for the unions of Yaroslav's father, and there is nothing known at all
that causes a possible later birthdate to preclude his having been the
son of Rogneda.
You might then have dropped the subject, or acknowledged the weakness of
the case that had been put forward, or else directly addressed the issue
with cogent argument. Instead, you just threw out some scatter-shot
remarks seeming aimed at outer edges of the question, as if these spoke
for themselves and needed to be refuted by others. Whether or not you
mean this, the impression left is that you are impervious to whatever
you may be told here if it doesn't match whatever you came with in the
first place. That is why patience is running thin, as John Higgins warned.
When people take the trouble to post responses to someone of clearly
bright intellect, they do expect a bit of thought to be exercised before
(or preferably instead of) dragging out the subject with pokes and digs
into thin air.
Peter Stewart
Not to beat up a dead horse, but, to defend myself, I was busy those days and, thus, didn't pay attention to your Raffensperger quote and, for that, I apologize.
This is the sort of lapse we all commit at times - posts come in from
several perspectives on a variety of topics that may be less than
peripheral to our interests or pursuits at the time, and following them
all closely can be bewildering.

The main advantage of SGM over print for me is that ill-considered
and/or erroneous input can be amended and/or augmented as soon as a
problem comes to light.

Concentration and accuracy are fine when time can be spared, but not
essential to the purpose of getting at the truth when there are many
sets of eyes to pick out deficiencies.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart
2020-05-18 22:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Indeed this entire thread could be considered a vacuous quibble.
Academics may twiddle their thumbs trying to think of a subject to
publish on, and come up with all sorts of foolishly trumped-up and/or
hyped-up revisionist ideas to elaborate, such as the supposed age of
some bones, but their time-wasting doesn't invariably need to become ours.
This is another misfire on my part, from bad temper.

The academic time-wasting I meant was the pointless questioning of
Yaroslav's maternity, not the attempt at gauging his birthdate with
misplaced confidence.

All sorts of interesting finds have been made from examining remains,
and the bones thought to be Yaroslav's are more likely to be actually
his than is the case with some others from his era.

But the prospective information from such studies is usually very
meagre, and academics are often prone to padding out their discoveries
with contextual deductions that are not based on exact science, or firm
history.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-27 18:53:48 UTC
Permalink
On another matter of Vladimir's children, what do you think of the theory that Izyaslav might not have been Vladimir's son, which is advocated in https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/Izyaslav$20Sjostrom/soc.genealogy.medieval/g8N13q0lDnI?
Peter Stewart
2020-05-27 22:53:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
On another matter of Vladimir's children, what do you think of the theory that Izyaslav might not have been Vladimir's son, which is advocated in https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/Izyaslav$20Sjostrom/soc.genealogy.medieval/g8N13q0lDnI?
The poster in 2008 wrote: "according to the Suzdal Chronicle, Ragneda of
Polatsk already had a son before her next husband Vladimir took her".

The Suzdal chronicle begins in AM 6619 (AD 1111), fully 110 years after
the death of Izyaslav, and a retrospective assertion in it that his
mother had a son to a different man before her union with Vladimir is a
thin reed to rely on in concluding that this son was (1) real and (2)
identifiable with Izyaslav, much less to set against the explicit
statement in the Primary chronicle that Izyaslav was the first of
Vladimir's four sons with Rogneda (and later that he was the second of
Vladimir's twelve sons altogether, by various women).

The speculation that Vladimir, having conquered Rogneda's homeland,
would have placed her son who was not also his on its throne to the
exclusion of her sons by him, stretches credulity further than I would
risk. It may be worth noting as a possibility, but barely.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-31 21:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
On another matter of Vladimir's children, what do you think of the theory that Izyaslav might not have been Vladimir's son, which is advocated in https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/Izyaslav$20Sjostrom/soc.genealogy.medieval/g8N13q0lDnI?
The poster in 2008 wrote: "according to the Suzdal Chronicle, Ragneda of
Polatsk already had a son before her next husband Vladimir took her".
The Suzdal chronicle begins in AM 6619 (AD 1111), fully 110 years after
the death of Izyaslav, and a retrospective assertion in it that his
mother had a son to a different man before her union with Vladimir is a
thin reed to rely on in concluding that this son was (1) real and (2)
identifiable with Izyaslav, much less to set against the explicit
statement in the Primary chronicle that Izyaslav was the first of
Vladimir's four sons with Rogneda (and later that he was the second of
Vladimir's twelve sons altogether, by various women).
The speculation that Vladimir, having conquered Rogneda's homeland,
would have placed her son who was not also his on its throne to the
exclusion of her sons by him, stretches credulity further than I would
risk. It may be worth noting as a possibility, but barely.
Peter Stewart
I agree. The Suzdal Chronicle is a later source and it's hard to use it against the Primary Chronicle.
taf
2020-05-18 13:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
By the same token, Vladimir had a son (St Boris, explicitly the son of a
Bulgarian mother) who was baptised as Roman, that was the name of Anna
Porphyrogenneta's father. So what? Several of the early Norman dukes
named daughters after wives that were definitely not their mothers. This
is said to have been a Norse custom, making it hardly a surprise to find
in the same period in Rus.
More generally, when a culture was in the midst of rapid onomastic shift, one has to be extremely careful in speculating genealogical relationships - the Rus and the Normans have been mentioned, but you also see it in the native English after the Conquest, the muladi in Al-Andalus and the mozarab and converso families after the Reconquista. Onomastics are poor representations of genealogical connections during these periods.

taf
Loading...