Talk:County of Werdenberg

Numbering the counts

@Wuselig: @NearEMPTiness:: I really need some orientiation in the numbering system in Werdenberg. How many Hugos, Rudolphs are there here? I tried to follow this book, but, as you can see, for example, in page 683, it's useless, because the genealogies are folded and unreadable... Could you help me here, please? Thank you. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanotti, is probably the most comprehensive source for a geneaology of the Werdenbergs and Monforts. I don't know if you can get his book in inter-library loan. The digitization, as you see is unusable. The fact, that he died in 1847 also means, that his research may also be slightly out of date, so modern numbering might also collide with the numbering he came up with. Sorry, but I am afraid that this is not the help you were looking for. Wikisource is also no help. --Wuselig (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wuselig: If it is useles how can we solve the problem? Oh, if at least German Wikipedia had a full genealogical list of the members of the family (like it does with other German and non-German families).... Well, do you know, at least, the higher numberings of the Counts of Werdenberg? I already know that there were ten Rudolphs (in spite of not knowing the ninth), and that there's a very high counting in Hugos' numbers... I think that Hugo (died 1508) is the last one, and is counted XI. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the result of my last larger research in that matter back in 2007: some lists. I don't have the time do go into this any deeper at the moment. I am active in other projects in the Wikimedia Universe in the meantime. You see that I am not disinteressted in the subject, but the only possibility I see at the moment would be to find somebody to get hold of the original Vanotti and make a copy of the lists. For now I only know that there is supposed to be a copy in the German National Library in Leipzig. --Wuselig (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wuselig: Hi! Thank you for your help. I'll check this list. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wuselig: @NearEMPTiness:: Hi! It's me again. I'm sorry to bother you with this matter one more time, but I'm planning to make massive categorization in Commons page of the Werdenberg family and I would like to know if you approve the numberings as they are here in the Wikipedia page, as I'm going to use them. I'm just trying to avoid later conflicts. Thank you! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I still insist on using the German numbering system (i.e. use the higher number) or use just the name but no number at all, but do not use a new system, please. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

So do I. I still think that there is a lot of Original Research in your categorizing and your allocation of images to certain Counts. Could you please explain on what basis you allocate this image to Hans, or John II of Werdenberg-Trochtelfingen? Where does it say so in the image? I only read "Graf Hans von Werdenberg". In my opinion this could be any family member with the name Hans (cousin, uncle, son, who knows?) --Wuselig (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey! @NearEMPTiness: I'm already using the german numbering. @Wuselig: John II of Werdenberg-Trochtelfingen is in fact John VI by the german numbering, and I allocated this image to him because he is the Count John of Werdenberg contemporaneous with the image (1512-15). You could say "it could be any other John from the past", but the work where the image was taken was about Emperor Maximilian I (r.1493-1519). Only one John in Werdenberg was living in the reign of this emperor: John VI. What other "original research" are you talking about? Since our talk about this I've done what you suggested and tried to follow german numberings. What other images you see that are in the wrong categories? Please, I would like you to tell me every single detail you don't agree. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you are assuming that there exist only ruling counts, but any family member, of any of the Werdeberg branches would have been count and Hans is a most common name. So it is not for us to make more detailed assumptions than the literature available to us. I didn't have this image on my observation list. But I am inclined to reverse your categorization, because I don't see any proper reference for it. And yes I think it would be advisable to recheck all your other categotizations and allocations. I have in mind what you wanted to do with the Lirer-image. I must assume that this is your general pattern of going about things. And yes that is what I call OR, if it is your assumption and not some scholars assumption that you can reference. --Wuselig (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wuselig: Hi! I can justify my edition of the "Graf Hans image". See this image? You can read "Graf Heinrich von Furstenberg". It could be any count of Furstenberg named Heinrich, right? There were many. But this image is categorised under Heinrich VII. Why? Because he died under Emperor Maximilian's reign (1499), and may have been in his court. The editor assumed what I assumed as well. About Werdenbergs, I've seen your family tree study of the Werdenbergs and I enjoyed it (albeit not covering all the family), and used it in the table of rulers. Trochtelfingen was the only line of the Werdenbergs who survived to the 16th century (with the exception of George II of Werdenberg-Sargans, who died in 1504, and, as I presume, without descendants). So, focusing on Trochtelfingen line, and based on your genealogical list, the last and only John before John VI was the Bishop of Augsburg (John V), who died in 1486 (so before Maximilian's reign). So, the only John of Werdenberg who testified Maximilian's reign was John VI (died 1522). Knowing all this, I believe that "Graf Hans" is John VI of Werdenberg. If at the end he is not, it's easy: we only need to change the Commons category. While there is no sure, we can always have theories, and I think mine is not that bad. By the way, please, you don't need to attack me with my "general pattern of going about things". I'm an editor and I make mistakes. You can't guess my way of thinking/editing in wiki by one single case. In the Lirer's image I just made a suggestion that proved to be wrong. I can't ask every time I make an edition. And if I asked you for checking this lists is because I know you have expertise in this matter. And I had a hard time to renumber all counts, verify if there wasn't a member missing who could have ruled, according to german sources. I even made the same in my other table in "Counts of Henneberg". I would really appreciate if you could tell me which Commons files/categories in "House of Werdenberg" you don't agree before reverting hours of work. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am not somebody who reverts easily and especially not in an ongoing discussion. I also didn't want to be rude, but just wanted to caution about making fast, easy looking assumptions. I am no expert on the Freydal Chronicle. I would try to get hold on some literature about this chronicle and follow the assuptions the authors made there about who is who. The Freydal is a account of the accomplishments of Maximilian. It is history as we know it from the Late Medieval Times, i.e. some truth mixed with a lot of fiction to built the foundation of a narrative. Maximilian is seen in tournament with a lot of people from his lifetime (not restricted to his reign), always as the victor as it seems. So if he fights a "Velix of Werdenberg", even I would be prone to make a clear assumption, because I have ever heard of only one of that name. Still, I don't know, if I would have followed Zieglhar in his assumption about Heinrich VII. (Fürstenberg). But don't worry I won't revert that either, because I don't know better than Zieglhar.

There is a reason why "my family tree" of the Werdenbergs is not in the article, but only on the talk page. I discontinued, because with the resources available to me at the time, I couldn't make ends meet, and I didn't want to make assumptions. And that was at a time, when we were a lot less strict about putting a "ref" at every point that could be contested.

So I guess what NearEMPTiness and I try to tell you, is to stay cautious. Just speaking for myself, I don't have the time at the moment to resume this research in detail. Perhaps I will in the next year, because I am involved with a Swiss Wikipedian who is trying to sort out the parts of the w:de:Werdenbergfehde that applies to the other Councils of Sigismund, Archduke of Austria. For now I only covered the part concerning the Werdenberg_Sigmaringen-Trochtelfingen on the one hand and the Von Zimmern family on the other. But the above mentioned Heinrich VII. and other members of the Montfort and Werdenberg families and other nobility of the Alpine Rhine Valley were involved as so called "Bad Councils" to Sigismund and their banishment and their seeking protection from the Swiss Confederacy and the subsequent conflicts between Habsburg/The German Empire and the Swiss Confederacy led to the de-facto independence of the Swiss Confederacy in 1499. You see the study of these families is a very rewarding and exiting thing.

We will stay in touch in this matter. Not at coordinated speed, but from my part I still have good faith in what you are doing.

As to the re-numbering: We should stick to the numbers in literature. It is not us, who do the re-numbering. I like the way you point out inconsistencies, though. --Wuselig (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Also in German historical literature you will find inconsistencies in the numbering of persons. So preferably persons have to be identified by their year of birth and/or death and by the names of their parents. Regarding the images in "Freydal" w:de:Freydal you should have in mind that this book is a kind of autobiography of Maximilian and the persons on the images were living during his lifetime. There's also historical literature explaining the persons on the images of Freydal (e.g. see for Hanns von Werdenberg you find no numbering but specific dates for the person. I recommend to make different numbering for one person visible in the description of a category. (see also for Heinrich von Fürstenberg) --Zieglhar (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Link to Vanotti including the tables [1] --Zieglhar (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Zieglhar, these are the kind of references that I mean that we as Wikipedians need to use when we put information into Wikipedia or Commons. The authors "Folliot de Crenneville-Poutet, Franz Maria Johann / Leitner, Quirin von" might have made the same assumptions as we might make them, but they are the ones that have put it into a quotable source.

Could you please check the link to Vanotti one more time. I see some kind of registar cards, but all the further links or tabs only show undecipherable source code. If you copy the link, and erase "manifest" it works! --Wuselig (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I copied the wrong link to Vanotti - here the right one [2] --Zieglhar (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the correct and easier to manage link. I think the familiy trees should be of great help to @Mhmrodrigues:. And to the rest of us. It could be a good idea to get the information we can gather from them into Wikidata. I will look into that in the new year. We also get an answer for some of the points discussed above. Vanotti considers the Monfort and Werdenberg as one big family. He counts the names of all branches of both main families in chronological order. So the missing Hugos will be found with the Monforts. I think this is a point were we can continue both in structuring the articles about the Montfort and Werdenberg. And also about the Commons categories. Still, I find Zieglhar's idea of persons to be identified by their year of birth and/or death and by the names of their parents a better idea than by the numbers Vanotti gave them. Or add the name Vanotti to that number. Vanotti is a great authority for these two families, but he also might be outdated and newer research might have brought some shifts into his trees. If we put these persons into Wikidata we will have our own unique identifiers to which articles in different language versions and in commons categories can be linked to. --Wuselig (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi!! @Wuselig: @Zieglhar:, thank you for the advice and link!! I'll be checking this in the new year. However, I think that distinguishing rulers by birth/death dates will be a bit confusing. Ordinal numbering is easier to memorize and comprehend than pure dates. Even if the numbering in Varotti's book isn't coeherent, at least is the best option we have, as we can finally support the numbering on a reliable source. For the gaps I'll do what I've been doing: a footnote with the indication of a gap in the numbering/rulers' counting. Wish you both a Merry Christmas!!! ;) Mhmrodrigues (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi!! @Wuselig: @Zieglhar:!! First, best wishes of a happy new year!!! I found something of interest for this matter. I've discovered an author called Ferdinand Gull, who also proposed his numberings for the Werdenberg family. I've seen it and I'm most inclined to accept his view. He simply numbers differently inside each branch of the family. See by yourselves: Heraldische und sphragistische Notizen über Dynastien und Geschlechter der ... You can scroll down and up for other family trees that he made as well. Do you think we can follow it? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year back to you! Nice find, but more for the qoutable text. It also looks as if his reference is "Emil Krüger: Die Grafen von Werdenberg-Heiligenberg und von Werdenberg-Sargans, St. Gallen 1887" and "Emil Krüger (Bearbeiter): Regesten der Grafen von Werdenberg-Heiligenberg und von Werdenberg-Sargans, St. Gallen 1887". Unfortunatly Krüger doesn't seem to be available in digital form. So with the numbering I am still inclined, that we should follow Vanotti as the most widely accepted, and therefore most often referenced authority about the dynasty.

By the way, the text shows descriptions of seals and images, but I can't see a single one in the scan. How is that with you? --Wuselig (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wuselig: Hi! Me neither. It must be a problem from the site. I had to go to the Swiss archives to look for the images. I'm trying to find seals for Swiss comital families, as there are almost no depictions/seals from these rulers. I also found the Vanotti counting a bit confusing. Note that he counts two Hugo IV's (Hugo IV the Eyeless in Werdenberg (d.1330) and the Hugo IV in Heiligenberg-Sigmaringen family (who died in 1332). Maybe the author made a mistake and this last Hugo IV is in fact Hugo VI? I don't know if there are more "mistakes"... Mhmrodrigues (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mhmrodrigues:, I am currently organizing a Workshop (w:de:Wikipedia:GLAM/Von Gregor Reisch bis zur Wikipedia), so until after that, my mind is preoccupied with that. Wikidata is also a part of that workshop. I don't know if you are familiar with Cradles and (Wikidata Cradle Creator for Persons). But perhaps it would just be easiest to assign our own Wikidata-identifier to all of these people and than we can even take note of the different numberings of each count according to different sources. --Wuselig (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)