Talk:Othon de la Roche

message: In your opening sentence it is written;  "Otto (or Othon) de la Roche (died 1234) was a Burgundian nobleman from the castle of La Roche-sur-l'Ognon, in the Franche-Comté commune of Rigney, Doubs. He joined the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and became the first Duke of Athens."  If I might ask, just what is the reliability of the source that identifies Otto de la Roche, as being from the house of "La Roche-sur-l'Ognon?"  It seems that there were at least two famous "La Roche" families in recorded history!  But one was represented on the "coat of arms" as a "fish", etc.!  Whilst the other was not!69.92.23.64 (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reliability of your source concerning Otho/Othon/Otto? 

message: Setton writes that Othon's "loyalty [to Emperor Henry] may have cost him Thebes, for the Cadmea was now in the possession of Albertino da Canossa, one of the chief rebels, who apparently claimed the city for himself" (Setton 1976, p. 28.).
:From the article: "After the Italian crusaders Albertino and Rolandino of Canossa returned [to Italy], their fief of Thebes was divided between Geoffrey and Otto [de la Roche]. The city itself became Otto's capital and the economic centre of his domains, due to its silk industry. He built a square tower, destroyed in the late nineteenth century, on the propylaea there and gave the city as a lordship to his nephew Guy. Athens itself remained Otto's residence. There he lived in his castle atop the Acropolis." Srnec (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ???? Setton writes that Albertino da Canossa seized Thebes from Othon. Why do you think that the above unsourced statements from the article are relevant? Borsoka (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "We should not use articles, books written more than 100 years ago, if a newer source can be cited." Why? 100 years is entirely arbitrary. Srnec (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding? Why do you want to use century-old sources if there are many reliable sources which can show the present status of research. Borsoka (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in my edit summary, I am only registering my disagreement with your arbitrary fiat, not my desire to restore the citations. The 100-year-old sources were, of course, 100% right. Srnec (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thebes and Othon 

message: Setton has probably written "late 1207" by inadvertence : he quotes Gregorovius (note 39) where the date is deduced from a letter of Innocent III (the one about Archbishop Berard and the treasurer of the Cathedral) which is dated from January 1208, but here "1208" means in fact 1209 since the year began in April in those times (cf the datation in note 40) - although Gregorovius didn't notice and misdated the letter. Since Setton accepts the datation of the letter - which is the sole basis for the date of the marriage - in his note, there is no reason to believe that he really meant 1207 instead of 1208.--Phso2 (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Might this depend on Setton and Gregorovius disagreeing about whether the date of the letter is based on a January or April start of the year? I do not know what medieval papal practice was (or if it was consistent, although I'd assume so). Srnec (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't disagree. Setton seems to accept both the date of january 1209 (cf his note 40 ) and the principle of the deduction (i.e., to assume that since O. is precisely recorded as married in the letter, it means that the marriage took place some weeks ago), but he took the date of 1207 in Gregorovius (book is on internet archive) failing to notice that it was deduced from a wrong datation of the letter.--Phso2 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have just checked what fn. 40 actually said. I've amended the article. Srnec (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mariage date 

message: The article gives two possible wives for Othon de la Roche, citing Setton (1976) and Longnon (1973).  These do not agree with each other, the former stating that Othon was married to an Elisabet (Isabelle) de Ray and the latter that she was the daughter of Clarembaud IV de Chappes.  It's evident from Setton's work that he hasn't used or seen Longnon's article - he cites the same author's earlier work several times.  When discussing Othon's familial relations, including Isabelle's parentage, Setton (page 417 note 67) relies entirely on Guillaume (1757) and Hopf (1873), even noting himself that "As always, the genealogical tables given in Hopf's Chron. gréco-romanes are to be used with extreme caution.  It's peculiar, then that no more explicit effort has been taken to verify the genealogical information he presents.
From Longnon's 1973 article, it's pretty clear that the wife of Othon really was the daughter of Clarembaud IV de Chappes.  He supports with a document dated December 1236 where Clarembaud V of Chappes makes a donation to a monastery for his soul's rest, the souls of his mother and father, his wife and especially Elizabeth his sister, duchess of Athens (Longnon, 1973, p. 64 and note 22 for references).  Longnon also mentions that Isabelle occurs several times in her father's charters dated 1189, 1194, and 1198.  In the article Longnon primarily discusses an act of 1251 which explicitly names Guy de la Roche and Othon de la Roche as brothers and as sons of Othon de la Roche and Isabelle.
The Lordship of Ray appears to have been in the family before Othon's marriage.  Medlands, here cites Alberic de Trois Fontaines, who in 1205, stated that Othon, lord or Ray, was the son of Pons, lord of Ray "Otto de Rupe, cuiusdam nobilis Pontii de Rupe in Burgundia filius".  Consequently, if Othon was already called lord of Ray in 1205, and his marriage is supposed to have taken place in 1207/8 (previous discussion, above), then he cannot have received the lordship of Ray by right of his wife, nor would his father have been called lord of Ray.
What am I missing that suggests that the article shouldn't specify that Othon's wife was Elisabeth de Chappes?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manigeen (talk • contribs) 02:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: About Ray, neither Medlands nor Alberic call him "lord of Ray in 1205"; the chronicle states for the events of the year 1205 that Othon de la Roche became duke of Athens, nothing about Ray (). A 18th cent. author states that he inherited Ray as a cadet after the death of other family members (cf French article), I doubt there is much evidence for all this in the end. By the way, there has been much effort done to verify and often correct Hopf's work, however these efforts are often neglected by general historiography for various reasons (lack of update, immense influence of Hopf in his time and the authors who followed him (due to its undeniable ground-breaking and monumental character), dispersion of information between authors writing different langages in often difficult-to-find publications, lack of authoritative prosopographical publications for the period etc).--Phso2 (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, what a mistake to make!  Thanks for the spot on the difference between "in" and "for the year" - Dur.Manigeen (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The wives of Othon