Hermann de Alemannia
- From: M Sjostrom <mqsjo5@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:01:47 +0200
There is no testimony that Nuremberg did not exist before 1050. You should
not draw unwarranted conclusions about a fact what was the first reliable
contemporary mention in documents about something.
Whereas archaeological finds seem to assure that the castle was existing in
Nuremberg already tad before the year 1000.
all that said, it is of course alternatively quite possible that magyar oral
tradition which preserved the reminiscence of where exactly Gizelle started
her journey, could have made a dog's barf out of it along the several
hundred years before it was finally written down.
At the time of writing the tale, centuries after the fact, the then
certainly existing Nuremberg *could* have come into the picture of the text
either by a mistaken idea, or as knowledge of what is currently named the
place where the castle of starting is located.
I assume that this interest to yet one ancient non-contemporary-attested
immigrant from abroad, is again out of the interest towards those claimed
(foreign) founders of 'hungarian' noble lineages....
That would likely mean this guy was not one of those at-death mentioned
magnates in Germany of that name, but a different guy who claimedly died in
If so, then it's useless to mix any duke Herman of Swabia to this role.
The name Herman was relatively frequent in those days; it simply could mean
'Herman from Germany' or 'Herman from swabian tribe' and that's nothing too
easy to identify.
Plus, if there is no near-contemporary source to attest the guy, then he is
not a historical character. Rather, then a legend or myth...
- Prev by Date: Re: Hermann de Alemannia
- Next by Date: Re: Hermann de Alemannia
- Previous by thread: Re: Hermann de Alemannia
- Next by thread: Re: Hermann de Alemannia