User talk:Solo

If I may ask where do you get the info for the Tourney of Compiegne? I am asking because if there is some source where I could check it out just out of pure curiosity. I find it most interesting for one fact alone...the arms of Brienne as Counts of Eu. I always thought it is strange that they would use the same arms as the main branch of the Brienne family and as Count Palatines of Burgundy, although the latter would be fine since they were considered foreign nobility in a sense they were vassals of the HRE, but the arms in this setup shows Jean II, Count of Eu using silver/white billets and lion as armed argent as well...most peculiar and interesting. :p Also you may have noticed I made a minor change there...the Jean de Brienne (Grand Butler of France) was in fact referred as d'Acre as did all his brothers, including the father of Jean II of Eu. The name of the arms is fine (the eagle he used is the imperial eagle of which the use to him was granted by the then current Emperor), anyway I he should be referred as d'Acre all the way since he was referred as such by his contemporaries and most especially probably during this tournament as well as does his name under the arms confirms. Hope that is not an issue...if you don't like it, you can revert...no biggie. Finellach (talk)

Yes I often hesitate to put the alternative names like that (some have several and others can be apocryphal), I find it hard to put so much info on so few space and it's clearly where the website find its hard limit ; I mean with roll of arms and the way identifying individuals would need to have small articles, mini biographies or details about the clues/reasoning behind identifications (like most of the unidentified indiv. where there's often several good possibilities). Jean de Brienne/d'Acre is one of the many individual all previous studies failed to identify (I'm really not sure why, since the legend makes him a 100%), he's also in the Wijnbergen and most other contemporary rolls. It's obviously the legend that identifies him so having both names is the best way to go IMO.

To illustrate this I could use one individual I identified in the Wijnbergen : Guillaume d'Avignon which is in fact Guillaume de Gonnesse, seneschal of Provence (went to Avignon to be sworn in at the time of the roll so that's probably the shortcut made by the herald). He's nicknamed after his title in the roll but if I have to use the least number of characters to identify him for the reader I can't just call him Guillaume d'Avignon and be done with it (if the previous authors knew who it was they weren't clear about it and I had to make that reasoning by myself to get there, so they at least failed to convey the information properly). At least, if there's the original legend below, I can afford to call him by his dynastic name, making it easy to understand it's an individual with several names, which is more of the norm than an oddity really. This is why having the legend, the closest possible to the original displayed in the roll is absolutely critical (I think it's really lacking in other rolls, that's my biggest pick about those to be honest).

For the roll, I'm using Barthélémy's publication which is based on the Valenciennes manuscript (that's not the original ms but that's the best I have). The book is available online on Gallica and Google : https://books.google.fr/books?id=4OZAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
I have the visuals from the several Beyeren copies available online : one is very close but I have the pictures from a few years back and am not sure where I got them tbh so I can't reference them clearly, the other one you already linked in the sources is clearly further apart but still has most entries identical (different order though). I have corrected a few of Barthélémy's entries when he obviously misread (like Henri d'Avaugour's maunch in chief) or forgot something (for Cleves he forgot the escarboucle but it's obviously there from the unfinished sentence) and I'll make a list of those once the roll is complete.
There's a lot of approximations in the roll so you shouldn't take anything for granted (specially since the material was probably altered in the various copies). Those billets in silver are one of those IMO as they would appear in other rolls if there was something behind it. My guess is that Barthélémy misread the colour (the most likely but I couldn't say for sure so I didn't correct this one) or the herald made a mistake.--Solo (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, I'll check it out for sure. It's really nice they started to digitize these armorials and such. As for Jean, Count of Eu, you might be right...it may be a mistake or unfinished touch or it can actually be the arms he used on the tournament itself and made the billets and armed the lion argent just for difference there, who will know...but it is interesting. Thanks again. Finellach (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)