Talk:Emicho

Untitled

"Leiningen is the name of an old German family, whose lands lay principally in Alsace and Lorraine. The first count of Leiningen about whom anything certain is known was a certain Emicho (d. 1117)...." [1]

According to Marlyn Lewis, The Ancestry of Elizabeth of York (Arvada, CO: HT Communications, 1999), Emich or Emicho was born circa 1054 at Alt-Leiningen [sic], Rheinland-Pfalz, Bavaria, the son of Emicho (d. 5 MAY 1072) and Kunigunde von Stromberg (d. after 1097), daughter of Berthold. He married Hizecha (d. by 1138) and died in battle in 1117. He had a brother, Berthold von Stromberg (d. 3 MAR 1110). He had a daughter surnamed von Flonheim zu Leiningen. She married a Goswin von Sponheim (born in Kyrburg, Rheinland, Prussia) and bore Gerlach I von Vendenz (died before 1146) and Emich II (born ca. 1089 and died after 1139). [2]

Just to inform you: Your source says: "Emich I (?) was born circa 1054 at of Alt-Leiningen, Pfalz, Bavaria.1" - That means Alt-Leiningen is in the Pfalz (Palatinate), which from 1777 to 1945 belonged to Bavaria, but now is part of the state of Rheinland-Pfalz, founded in 1945. Str1977 19:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point. "Bavaria" seems irrelevant here. Then one question is: what was the Leiningen area considered to be part of toward the end of the 11th century? Another question concerns Flonheim: how does that come into the picture? Thirdly, there seems to have been, around 780, a possible (Frankish?) ancestor named Amicho; but is "Emicho" the best appelation for the crusader, or is "Emich" more accurate? Myron 11:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The later Leiningen area (near Bad Dürkheim, there are more places in Germany named Leiningen) was in the 11th/12th century part of the de:Wormsgau, the region around Worms, Germany.

Concerning Flonheim (later about it's place in the puzzle): It was part of the de:Nahegau, the area along the river Nahe.

Appellation: Amicho (perhaps) and Emicho (the crusader) were members of the Emichons (Emichonen), so Emicho ist the right name. About 1100 the form of the name changes to Emich - all known members of the House of Leiningen are called Emich. --jergen 12:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Another source states that Emich II was the son (rather than the grandson) of the crusader Emich I Graf von Leiningen and Graf in Nahegau and Wormsgau by Adelheid (not Hizecha) and that Emich I was the son of Emich von Leiningen (d. 1108), himself the son of Emich, Graf von Nahegau (d. by 1072) [3]

An "Emicho de Liningen" is mentioned in a 1086 document. A "Graf (Count) Emich II" aka "Graf Emicho II, comes de Liningen" built a castle in Liningen/Leiningen from around 1100 until its completion in 1110.[4] There is no extant record of any "Count Emich I".[5] The "Alt" prefix in the castle's name was added around 1242 to distinguish it from a newly-built neighboring castle named Neuleinigen. [6]

The upshot of this confusion seems to support crusader Emicho's claim to dominion over Leiningen as well as Flonheim. Most histories of the 1st Crusade seem to attribute Leiningen to Emicho. Suppressing Leiningen and asserting Flonheim in the Wikipedia article may confuse readers absent an explanation... but what exactly is the support for flat-out denial that Emicho held the title Graf von Leiningen?

Myron 15:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Newer studies identify Emicho as an member of the Emichons (german: Emichonen) and not of the Leiningers (which were possibly related to the Emichons); most sencondary writings (and internet sites) use older literature and are 25 years or more behind the actual state of Diplomatics.

The Emichons were a house of counts in the Nahegau; the house of Leiningen seems to be related to this family, but there are no clear evidences. Toussaint attributes Emicho (the crusader) to Flonheim (a small village near Mainz) and not to the castle Altleiningen (build around 1110), which is about 60 km away.

In older studies Emicho was attributed to Leiningen following the misreading of an hebrew source (the only known document with an attribution concerning the crusader of 1096), which attibutes Emicho to Mem, Vav, Lamed, Nun, He, Yod, Mem. Following Toussaint, Mem means of. The rest reads Vlnhjm (older scholars read this as Leiningen, which is nearly impossible, the -heim part is very clear). Another document (dated 1098) mentions as witness comes emicho de Vlanheim (Count Emicho of Flonheim). Only a few years later Flonheim was a center of the territory of the Wildgrafen, who were descendants of the Emichons.

If you understand german, I propose for further reading:

Ingo Toussaint: Die Grafen von Leiningen. Studien zur leiningischen Genealogie und Territorialgeschichte bis zur Teilung von 1317/18. Jan Thorbecke Verlag, Sigmaringen 1982. ISBN 3-7995-7017-9

Concerning the different webpages:

• Genelogical webpages are most of no value, they don't give sources and cite usually other webpages. I exclude [7] (seems ok), but it shows a lot of questionmarks.
• These pages [8], [9], [10] mention only an Emicho of Leiningen, but don't connect him to the german crusade. The year 1068 in this pages is very questionable, since the first mention of Leiningen was 1128 (cf Toussaint).
• The britannica dates from 1911 - it is just outdated.

Newer english literature also uses Emicho of Flonheim instead of Emicho of Leiningen, cf. [11] (2004) . --jergen 14:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed this discussion, apparently the talk page didn't show up on my watchlist after the article was moved. Can the article be moved again, to "Emich of Flonheim" or some such name? If "Emich of Leiningen" is not accurate, it seems a step backwards to simply use his given name, which could be anybody (since there are so many Leiningens called Emich, for example). At this point of the Middle Ages we should feel more comfortable assigning important people to a specific place, I think. Adam Bishop 02:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As it goes, people in first half of the Middle Ages had only given names. Even if newer English literature uses "Emicho of Flonheim", this is rejected by Toussaint. Emicho is mainly known only by his name, only one document attributes him to Flonheim; but it is known, that this village was part of the Nahegau, which was hold by the Emichonen.

If you feel that a move is necessary, I propose Emicho (crusader). It avoids the problems of medieval naming. --jergen 08:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Emicho (crusader)" is an excellent solution. For nearly all users, "Emicho" is of interest only as a crusader, naming the man with a specific location is anachronistic, searches for "Emicho of Flonheim" and "Emicho of Leiningen" inspired in the user by material in existing non-Wikipedia writings may misfire, and there is little prospect that scholarship will turn up substantially more information about the crusader's name, origins and possessions. Myron 10:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

ARTICLE NEEDS REWORK

This article should be seriously reworked for it is almost wholly a POV article deriving it's entire source from Ingo Toussaint: Die Grafen von Leiningen. Jan Thorbecke Verlag, Sigmaringen 1982. ISBN 3-7995-7017-9, which itself has been attacked in several midieval journals for it's lack of scholarly sources. Additionally, as the succeeding discussions show, there is an entire history of Emicho and is family which isn't discussed and has as much importance on German history as the 1st Crusade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.231.9.66 (talk • contribs) . March 1, 2006.

Wikipedia's naming conventions demand inclusion of name Count Emicho of Leiningen

As all the books that I have encountered that mention Emicho call him Count Emicho of Leiningen this name should be included as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions that state:

(emphasis added)"Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

"This is justified by the following principle:Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

"In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed."

I don't have a problem calling the article Emicho, Count Emicho, or Emicho (crusader) I'm just saying that the phrase Count Emicho of Leiningen must be included in the introductory paragraph as its the most widely used name to describe him. When I first came here from the link at the German Crusade page, I was certain this was someone else and that the link needed to be altered and a new page established for Count Emicho of Leiningen. I have never seen anyone call him anything but Count Emicho of Leiningen.

--Wowaconia 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I second this. The article should be amended to be titled Count Emicho of Leiningen.

--Maximib 22:54, 30 August 2008 (EST)

mentioned as Bishop?

see Radulphe. I think there was a Bishop Emicho of Leiningen. This may be the root of the confusion. -- 146.115.58.152 15:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)