Talk:Escors

[Untitled]

Hi, I underwent a major clean-up operation. The main problem with this page was the huge amount of information, some of it not sufficiently relevant or backed up with sufficiently credible references. I have removed major parts, simplified sentences and re-organise the article sections. Nevertheless, there is still some work to do...David1974maia (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Phso2 editing

Hi, I read your changes to Gilbert de Cors. There are a few things that I agree and others disagree... It is true that the Chronicle of Morea manuscripts(all versions) don't extensively deal with Gilbert de Cors' genealogy, but they extensively deal with "Le Maure"'s genealogy, possibly because they were responsible for sponsoring the original lost Greek manuscript. This was made by them as a means to ensure their linking to Frank-Moreot families and thus, a justification for their rule. Therefore, the genealogy is not really a 19th century hypothesis, but it is in fact much earlier. The problem is that apart from the Anjevin's documents (those belonging to the House d'Anjou, and the Azzenzis' collection of rules) and "the Chronicle" itself, there are not other documents left from the Principality of Achaya. This also includes the difficulties in proving the existence of lost fiefs possibly detailed in the lost manuscript and other documents. Le Bon points out the lack of these documents in other documents (found from the Anjevin's documents? I am no sure) as proving his point. However, it is "agreed" by historians in this subject that the original documents from Morea have been lost. The only thing left is "the Chronicle". I agree with you that we have to be careful in interpreting what "the Chronicle" says, and these manuscripts are copies from the original, which were subjected to extensive editing.... I like the way that you re-wrote it, but I will remove the 19th century hypothesis because it is no fully accurate... I don't know what you think about this?

Achaya (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we have to distinguish clearly between what is actually said by the sources (i.e. for the most part the Chronicles) and what are hypothesis. For G de Cors,

1) he is mentionned (as far as i know) by every version of the Chronicle, mostly in relation with the problems of his widow about her heritance ; but he is mentionned in the list of the barons only in the Aragonese version (his baronny doesn't appear in the French nor Greek versions), that's why I made this formulation. (PS after having looked in the Greek version ([1] p 219), he is also called a baron in it even if he is not in the list, so I think we can keep the sentence as it is now)

2) the Aragonese version doesn't give a name for his baronny, but says he built the castle of Mitopoli (near Chalandritsa)

3) I didn't find anywhere in the Chronicles that is he called a lord of the fief of Lisarea. The first author in which I found this claim is Buchon, so I think A. Bon is perhaps wrong is ascribing this hypothesis to Hopf. Anyway, we have to mention this Lisarea lordship since it is often found in historical writings.

4) The genealogy of the Le Maure/Aulnay family in the Chronicle doesn't make a clear connection with G. de Cors/M. de Passavant. It merely says that G de Briel married a "Marguerite, lady of Lisaréa" (called "Jeanne" in one of the versions), which is probably the same who is mentionned in the episode of the trial of M de Passavant about partition of the baronny of Akova in the French version ; some 19th century authors (Buchon, Hopf) implicitly believe this Marguerite was the daughter of G de Cors, but they give no argumentation about it and their works are well-know for the numerous gratuitous hypothesis they contain, which fact explain why Bon reject it. I am not opposed that it is mentionned since as you wrote, it is widely accepted, but you must admit that this connection is an hypothesis and is not to be found in the medieval sources.--Phso2 (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phso2, thanks for the comments, and I agree with you. It is true that the Aragonese version provides the name of the castle, and everything that was given to him... In fact, the list of fiefs found in all the different version varies, as well as the typographic forms of the names (Chiper de Cors, etc....)..Yes, I fully agree that the connection is a hypothesis, as many derived from Medieval times.... Again, I agree that mostly because of the problems of her widow with the inheritance, as the Prince had to use quite a subtle way to address this issue, quoting and using the "rules of the land" (now lost, but exemplified in other legal documents of the Era from the Anjou family...).

Usually, I follow the oldest manuscripts such as the Greek version in Copenhangen, the French version in Belgium and the Aragonese version in Madrid... I don't bother with the Italian version (as it was a copy of a Greek copy...)...

Again, I liked the way you wrote it, I think is a good consensus. In fact, other authors had to go back to medieval documents in Champagne to identify the families involved in the fourth Crusade, as there are many typographic forms, names... Again, I like it the way that you wrote it......

By the way, my name is David, I think I will have to complete my User page. I am glad to find someone interested in Medieval Greece as well....

David Achaya (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

How does two whole centuries of history disappear?

I noticed a gap in the "history" section, and it only amounted to 200 years! Why? Perhaps this site can fill in some of the blank space? http://books.google.com/books?id=7knSBqbjMl4C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=franks+in+the+levant&source=web&ots=PtRgC-k5gp&sig=UZC0SzB1gYFgx77qa-nCYOTnGpI&hl=en&ei=jtGRSefVFdCCtwf_lKTXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result 96.19.147.40 (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

The two "lost centuries"

I think the answer lies below and the article has not been completed. These two centuries span the section of the Evreux's rule of Navarre. Parts of it appear in Simon d'Escors' section, as an example, who lived in the 14th-15th century. They fell out of favour when the Evreux lost their control over Navarre.Achaya (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Fake?

"El solar vasco-navarro" ("Basque-Navarrese lineages") is one of the books mentioned as source: Escorz_Este apellido es navarro, y tuvo casa solar en la villa de Maya de Baztán, del valle del mismo nombre y partido judicial de Pamplona. Consta esta casa en documentos de la Nobleza Executoriada de Navarra. That's all. Summing up: Navarrese surname from Maya, Baztán Valley. End of the story. In the official "Libro de Armería de Navarra" (16th century)("Book of Navarrese Coats of Arms") no coat of arms appears, which is rather odd if one takes into account the astonishing feats of the Escors family in the King of Navarre's service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.89.51 (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Not fake. You have to look for the info in the documents from the Kingdom of Navarre before the Castilian and Aragonese Conquest, from the Kings of the House of Champagne. It is likely that Escorz is not Escors. I am fixing this article to dissociate both things.

Is the bell the emblem of Maya de Baztán?

It's the typical Baztanese chequer-board coat of arms. See Baztan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.89.51 (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The bell is indeed the emblem of Maya de Baztán

The emblem of Baztan is the chequer-board, as it is with most of Baztanese towns, with the exception of the Villa of Maya, which is the Bell (see http://www.baztan.eus/es/lugar-y-gentes/herriak/amaiur/).

Currently, I am modifying the page according to contrasted evidence, hoping that it is not detected as "vandalism".

User talk:Achaya1

Explanations of my edits

Hi, I am a historian specialized in Navarre. As some users from the Spanish version pointed out, this article seems over-stated with unlikely claims. Many of the references are misplaced, or do not directly apply to the text. The text is full of partial and subjective interpretations that are not substantiated by evidence. I will expose what the current evidence says and try to modify the article the best that I can.

1. There is abundant evidence on the Escors family in the documents of the Kingdom of Navarre from the Kings of the House Champagne (located in the public library of Paris, some of them in the Public University of Navarre and some of them known as the Gascon Rolls in the UK). A few of these documents can be publicly accessed as they have been scanned. Some of these documents are cited in this page. Basically, this family (as many other french families) moved to Navarre when the Counts of Champagne took over the throne of Navarre. The french kings gave the most important military and governmental positions to trusted french subjects. From this family, some Castellanies were given, as well as counselling positions (Simon dÉscorsi, one of them, for which plenty of written evidence exists). Many members of this family took military posts, probably as mercenaries as well. This was a typical thing in the middle ages.

2. There is no evidence that the Escors are the Escorz Baztanese family. These two things need to be dissociated from the article, including the references.

3. Gilbert de Cors may or may not have been from the Escors family. Even the existence of Gilbert de Cors is speculative, although likely to be true and widely accepted by scholars in the Crusades. Now, it is true that most scholars accept that many of the royal houses in Europe may have had Gilbert de Cors as an ancestor. However, this issue has been addressed by others (see above) here and I believe is well explained.

I will continue editing and removing what I believe is not backed up by sufficient evidence. However, I can also make mistakes. Nevertheless, I hope that my edits will not be considered as vandalism. Following my recent edits, I truly think that now this article is more well-balanced than it was before.

User talk:Achaya1 —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)