#lothar lambert | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

emperor-zhaolie · 11 months

Text

On the Treaty of Verdun and its Consequences

Louis the Pious died in 840. Three years later his empire was divided into three independent kingdoms. The Treaty of Verdun was the first great European accord whose consequences proved durable, and its terms came as no surprise to contemporaries. The idea of partitioning the empire was not new. In accordance with Frankish custom, Charlemagne had provided for the division of his legacy in 806, and Louis the Pious had done so several times. Nevertheless, the death of Louis did not ensure the implementation of the scheme he had proposed. Only after three years of warfare and negotiation did the three brothers, Lothar, Louis, and Charles, arrive at a solution of their own formulation.

Prelude and Circumstances

The death of his father prompted Lothar to forget the arrangements he had agreed to at Worms in 839. He meant to claim it all, as Nithard reports:

“When Lothar heard that his father had died, he dispatched messengers everywhere, especially across all of Francia. They announced that he would take over the empire that had once been given to him. He promised that he would allow everyone to keep the benefices granted by his father, and that he desired to augment them. He ordered that persons whose loyalty was doubtful should promise their fealty. Moreover, he commanded that they should come before him as soon as possible, and that those who refused to do so should be executed.”

Lothar’s position appeared in fact quite strong. Louis of Bavaria had only a few troops and faced threats of Saxon revolt and Slavic incursion. Lothar, moreover, could count on the help of his nephew Pippin II, who led a part of the Aquitainian nobility in a revolt against Charles the Bald.

Lothar Versus Charles

Now seventeen, Charles had been established by his father in Aquitaine, where his mother Judith also resided. Because he needed to ensure the allegiance of followers north of the Loire and west of the Meuse, he embarked on a trip across his realm. But no sooner had Charles moved on from a locale, than Lothar's promises and threats seduced the local nobility. Thus, according to Nithard, as Lothar approached the Seine, Abbot Hrlduin of St. Denis, Count Gerard IT of Paris, and Pippin, the son of Bernard of Italy, “chose like slaves to break their word and disregard their oaths rather than give up their holdings for a little while.” Lothar sent envoys everywhere, including Provence and Brittany, to exact oaths from the nobility. Alternating flattery with threats, he promised Charles protection and a new partition, and meanwhile schemed to undermine his noble support with the help of repeated truces. Charles, however, also worked relentlessly to shore up his position by renewing ties with old supporters and gaining new ones. At Orleans, he received a pledge of fealty from Count Warin of Mâcon; at Bourges, he worked to win over Bernard of Septimania from Pippin II; and at Le Mans, he secured the support of Lambert III, count of Nantes. Nevertheless, the fruits of these efforts remained uncertain because Charles could not be everywhere at once. To obtain lasting success, he needed to defeat Lothar’s numerically superior forces. For this, Charles would have to make common cause with his brother Louis, who had withdrawn into Bavaria after suffering similar desertions among his followers.

The Alliance of Louis and Charles

In the spring of 841 fortune smiled on the two brothers. Charles managed to force a crossing of the Seine, and Louis arrived in the west to meet him after defeating Adalbert, Duke of Austrasia. The two princes combined forces near Auxerre. With the agreement of the bishops, they appealed for a “judgment of God,” that is, a trial by battle. On 25 June 841, the army of Charles and Louis squared off against that of Lothar and Pippin II at Fontenav-en-Puisave, near Auxerre. As lay-abbot of St. Riquier, die historian Nithard was also a participant, and he declared that “it was a great battle.” The engagement was, in fact, one of the greatest and most horrific of the Carolingian period. Contemporary chroniclers speak of thousands of dead: “a massacre whose equal no one could recall ever before witnessing among the Franks.” A certain Angilbert left an echo of the fratricidal slaughter in a rhythmic Latin poem:

‘May neither dew nor rain nor shower moistens that meadow where men most skilled in war did fall, who were lamented with tears by fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and friends.

From a hilltop, I gazed upon the valley below where brave Lothar repulsed his enemies and beat them back in flight across the brook.

Likewise on the side of Charles and Louis, the fields are white with the linen garments of the dead, as they are wont to be with birds in autumn.

The battle deserves no praise; it should be no subject of fine song. North, south, east, and west, may they all lament those who died by such a penalty.”

Whatever the assessment of Angilbert, his master Lothar was defeated and fled to Aachen. After celebrating a Mass of thanksgiving on the field of victory, Louis and Charles received a number of nobles who had waited to see the issue of the battle. Thus Bernard of Septimania arrived from his nearby camp, and committed his sixteen-year-old son William to the care of Charles the Bald. The young man became as much a hostage as a vassal, and his mother Dhuoda responded to his absence by composing for him her famous Handbook, where in she outlined a program of education for a young Christian nobleman.

The Strasbourg Oaths (842)

Despite his defeat, Lothar continued to intrigue, making new offers to Charles in an effort to break his alliance with Louis of Bavaria. The two allies, however, were firm in the belief that God was on their side, and they sealed their pact of cooperation. On 12 February 842, they exchanged oaths to this effect at Strasbourg in the presence of each other’s troops:

“For the love of God and for our Christian people’s salvation and our own, from this day on in as much as God grants me knowledge and power I shall treat my brother with regard to aid and everything else as a man should rightfully treat his brother, on condition that he do the same for me. And I shall not enter into any dealings with Lothar which might with my consent injure my brother.”

Nithard preserved the foregoing words, and he did so not once, but twice, in two similar yet decisively different forms. To make himself clear to the other’s followers, each brother pronounced his oath in their language: Louis spoke in “Romance,” while Charles spoke in lingua teudisca, or “Germanic.” Thereupon their respective vassals proceeded to swear an oath in their own vernacular—also recorded by Nithard—promising to abandon their lord should he break his pledge. Thus the Strasbourg Oaths have come to mark not only a momentous diplomatic and political event, but also an important step in the linguistic history of Europe. In order to celebrate the harmony that reigned between the allies, games were often arranged, as Nithard describes:

“They came together wherever a show could be accommodated. With a whole multitude gathered on either side, each with an equal number of Saxons, Gascons, Austrasians, and Bretons, they first rushed at full speed against one another as if they meant to attack. Then, one side would turn back, pretending to flee to their teammates under the cover of shields, but countering, they would dart back after their former pursuers. Finally, both kings and all the young men spurred forward their horses with immense clamor and lances in hand, and they gave chase by turns as the other side took flight. It was a show worth seeing thanks to the outstanding participants and good discipline. In such a vast array of different players no one dared hurt or abuse another, as often happens even when the games are small and among friends.”

Lothar Submits

Finally, the two brothers marched on Aachen. They occupied the palace, though Lothar had already carted away the treasury. With the accord of the bishops, they then proclaimed Lothar unworthy to govern, and they proposed to divide the empire between themselves. Twelve commissioners were appointed on each side to determine their respective shares. Thus, Lothar had to know that an indefeasible alliance now united Louis and Charles. After Fontenay, the Strasbourg Oaths and the capture of Aachen, the ambitious emperor had no choice but to yield. He abandoned his erstwhile ally, Pippin II. With great generosity, Charles and Louis agreed to resume negotiations on a new basis aimed at a tripartite division of the empire, excluding Aquitaine, Bavaria, and Lombardy, since these regions were considered respectively as the home domains of Charles, Louis and Lothar.

Negotiations (Spring 842-August 843)

It was high time for the brothers to come to terms. Frankish political turmoil had dramatically emboldened foreign sea-borne raiders, who now went so far as to pillage important centers like Quentovic and even Rouen. To dislodge one group of Northmen, the monks of St. Wandrille had agreed to pay an enormous tribute, and thereby introduced an inviting precedent. A group of Danes also settled themselves, with Lothar’s consent, on the Frisian island of Walcheren and some neighbouring places. In Provence, Muslim raiders attacked Marseille and Arles, while other Arab forces made inroads against Benevento in southern Italy. Finally, the usual restiveness of Aquitaine, Brittany, Saxony, and the Slavs posed a host of additional challenges.

The Difficulties

Nevertheless, the negotiations were to last for well over a year, such was the mistrust of the parties and the difficulty of the issues involved. On 15 June 842, the three brothers came together near Mâcon, and agreed to keep the peace until autumn, when a meeting of delegates was scheduled to convene on 30 September for the purpose of dividing the empire equally and fairly. This gathering was scuttled due to fears aroused by Lothar’s behaviour. Another meeting successfully convened on 19 October 842 at Koblenz, where the Rhine separated the camps of the two delegations, and the abbey of St. Castor served as a site for their deliberations. Although Charles and Louis had originally agreed that Lothar should choose first among the three parts of the kingdom, Lothar’s envoys cavilled over the terms of a “fair and equitable partition” in face of the avowed ignorance of all concerning the empire’s extent and resources. Although Charles and Louis had offered him everything between the Rhine in the east and the Meuse, Saône, and Rhone in the west, Lothar wanted, in addition, those portions of the Carolingian heartland that lay west of the Meuse in the region of the Charbonnière Forest. In the end, the protests of Lothar’s delegates over what was “fair and equitable” backfired. It was decided that no decision could be made until a survey of the empire was taken to ensure a just partition. The truce between the brothers was twice extended while commissioners worked to assess the resources of the empire. Though arduous and long, their work was furthered by inventories (descriptiones) listing bishoprics, religious foundations, counties, and royal properties.

Charles’s Marriage

Meanwhile, Charles the Bald used the truce to consolidate his position. He married Ermentrude, the daughter of Count Odo of Orléans, on 14 December 842. Odo stemmed from a family based along the Middle Rhine which was probably related to that of Gerold, Charlemagne’s brother-in-law. Odo himself had married Engeltrude, the sister of Count Gerard and the seneschal Adalhard, one of the most powerful lords in western Francia. Nithard wrote at length concerning Charles’s choice of bride:

“Louis the Pious in his time had loved this Adalhard so much that he did whatever Adalhard wanted everywhere in the empire. Adalhard cared less for the public good than for pleasing everyone. He persuaded the emperor to distribute privileges and public property for private use, and since he arranged for whatever anyone requested, he totally ruined the government. By this means it happened that he could bend the people to do whatever he wanted.”

Charles no doubt hoped to gain the favor of Adalhard through his marriage, even though his brother Gerard had joined Lothar’s cause. For Nithard added: “Charles entered into this marriage above all because he thought he could attract the largest following with Adalhard.” Charles spent the rest of the harsh winter of 843 with his new wife in Aquitaine, prosecuting the fight against Pippin II. Spring brought him a series of unpleasant reports: Empress Judith died on 13 April; Scandinavian raiders captured Nantes on 24 June; and an important victory was scored by the Bretons under the leadership of their duke, Nominoë. The young king required freedom to act, and this largely presupposed a resolution of the disputes surrounding the partition. In August 843, the three brothers agreed to meet at Dugny, near Verdun, and there they concluded their momentous transaction.

The Treaty of Verdun and Its Terms

The text of their agreement has not been preserved, but the boundaries of the three kingdoms established around the kernels of Aquitaine, Lombardy, and Bavaria can be determined from indirect evidence. To Charles went everything to the west of a line that roughly followed the Scheldt, Meuse, Saône, and Rhone rivers, while Louis acquired everything east of the Rhine and north of the Alps. Retaining his imperial title, Lothar received the central strip of territories extending from the North Sea to Italy. Still, it is not enough to trace the map of the three kingdoms of the Treaty of Verdun, we must also consider the underlying reasons for the boundaries that emerged.

The Rationale of the Partition

Since the nineteenth century, historians, especially in France and Germany, have used a variety of rationales to account for the formation of the three kingdoms. In the heyday of the principle of nationality, the French historians Jules Michelet and Augustin Thierry believed that the negotiators of 843 had sought above all to do justice to national sentiment and linguistic distinctions. Hence, “France” and “Germany” were born at Verdun, while the portion assigned to Lothar was destined to break up into pieces that later emerged as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and Italy. This idea proved so durable that Joseph Calmette could still remark in his generally balanced synthesis “Effondrement d'un empire et la naissance d'une Europe (Paris, 1941)” that the Treaty of Verdun had ‘Violated nature” in establishing a no-man’s-land between France and Germany. The negotiators had cut into “the living flesh of France and Germany, and the wounds thus made had never healed, and had even reopened at periodic intervals.” In his “Naissance de la France (Paris, 1948)”, Ferdinand Lot was in general more circumspect. Although he noted that “no concept of race or language had ever determined the shape of Carolingian or Merovingian partitions,” he added that “having experienced the rupture of their close tics, the future France and Germany could take stock of their individuality, until then confused, and live henceforth independent existences.” Moreover, he judged that “without the amputation of her eastern flank, France could never have arisen: France could only live at the cost of losing an arm.”

At the time, however, there was no “France,” no “Germany.” Charles the Bald made a kingdom composed of diverse peoples speaking very different languages. Precious little could serve to unite the Goths of the Spanish March, the Gascons, the Aquitainians, the Bretons and the peoples of Neustria and Flanders. To the east, Louis of Bavaria could scarcely claim greater cohesion among his subjects, despite the contrary assertions of German historians of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To explain the grounds for the partition enacted at Verdun, we must look beyond nationality and nationhood. Some historians have proposed that the emphasis had lain on the economic needs of each of the future kingdoms. In his “History of Europe”, written in 1917 and first published in 1936, Henri Pirenne stated that “the point of view espoused by the negotiators was dictated by the prevailing system of economy.” Each partaker in the division was to receive an area whose revenues were more or less equal. On the basis of this idea, Roger Dion noted in 1948 that each allotment divided the various economic zones of western Europe along a north-south axis: the coastal pasturelands of the north, the central cereal plains, forests, and wine regions, and finally the salt marshes and olive groves of the south. However intriguing, these hypotheses fail in their turn to account for all the facts. Moreover, the Carolingian princes had not read Aristotle and learned from him that polities should be self-sufficient.

The Belgian historian François Louis Ganshof turned to contemporary sources to penetrate the rationale of the partition of 843, and we shall follow his example. On the subject of partitions, Nithard had, of course, noted two significant facts: first, that “fertility or equal size of the lands apportioned was not considered so much as the fact that they were adjacent and fitted into the territory already held by each brother”; and second, that “Lothar complained about the fate of his followers, since in the share that had been offered to him he would not have enough to compensate them for what they had lost.” Nithard’s remarks suggest the most satisfactory explanation. The brothers were most concerned about the fate of their followers, for without their help, they could do nothing.

Therefore, they had to keep the benefices of their vassals within their respective kingdoms, since it was recognized that no vassal could pay homage to several lords. To avoid the likelihood of incompatible obligations, Charlemagne had articulated a key principle in his Divisio regnorum of 806: “The followers of each king shall each receive their benefices inside the realm of their master.” Likewise in the Ordinatio imperii of 817, Louis the Pious had instructed that “each vassal should hold his benefices only within the dominion of his lord, and not in that of any other.” This concern explains, for instance, why the border of the western kingdom of Charles the Bald crossed the Saône and took in a part of Burgundy that included the holdings of his vassal Warin, count of Mâcon, Autun, and Chalon and abbot of Flavigny. Louis of Bavaria likewise received a section of the left bank of the Rhine including the bishoprics of Mainz, Worms, and Speyer, not on account of the local vineyards, as a later chronicler would report, but to keep the lands of powerful episcopal vassals inside his kingdom.

Hence, the problems of benefices and fealty weighed heavily in the negotiations that led to the treaty ratified at Verdun. As Fustel de Coulanges pointed out in the nineteenth century, “the partition was not undertaken for the people, but rather for the vassals.” With the help of maps, we can easily see that each brother wanted to maximize the number of his abbeys, bishoprics, and fiscal domains in Francia. The heartland of the empire was home to choice benefices held by great Austrasian families, but there also lay the main state residences that each king strove to retain for his own use, enjoyment, and profit. Each of three brothers was a “king of the Franks.” They reigned jointly over their respective fractions of the “Kingdom of the Franks,” while they separately ruled Aquitaine, Bavaria, and Lombardy.

The Consequences of the Partition at Verdun

Those who divided the empire could not possibly have foreseen that the borders fixed at Verdun would determine the map of medieval Europe, and furthermore that the boundary between the kingdom of Charles the Bald and the empire of Lothar was destined to survive for centuries. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Scheldt River separated the “kingdom” from the empire; the Saône divided Burgundy into two parts: the duchy to the west, and the county—later known as Franche-Comté—to the east, while further south one passed once again from the “kingdom” to the empire by crossing the Rhone. The border of the “kingdom” as fixed at Verdun is still visible today near the Argonne plateau along the line separating the modem French départements of Meuse and Marne. To the southeast, the Pyrenees did not represent a frontier at all, since Charles possessed Spanish lands that remained part of the “kingdom” until the reign of Saint Louis (1258). The boundaries between the realms of Lothar and Louis would later prove less stable as a consequence both of further partitions made among the emperor’s heirs and of the territorial ambitions of the German kings. Yet there again we find the outline of the future Germany. To my mind, the Treaty of Verdun was the “birth certificate” of modem Europe. For contemporaries, the momentous event marked the end of the great ideal of unity. Florus of Lyon reacted with bitterness:

The mountains and hills, woods and rivers, springs,

High cliffs and deep valleys too.

All bemoan the Frankish people, which, after its rise to empire by the gift of Christ,

Now lies covered in ashes.

It has lost both the name and the glory of empire,

and the united kingdom has fallen to three lots.

For there is no longer any one recognized as emperor:

instead of a king, there is a kinglet; for a realm, but the fragments

thereof.

This Lament on the Division of the Empire voiced the concerns of the clerical party, who had hoped to maintain imperial unity and who deeply feared that division would weaken the church. The ecclesiastical provinces and individual bishoprics were also partitioned as a result of the Treaty of Verdun. Thus, the sees of the province of Cologne were variously assigned to the separate realms of Lothar and Louis; similarly, the bishop of Strasbourg lived in Lothar’s empire, while he remained a suffragan of the archbishop of Mainz, a subject of Louis. Sometimes, a single diocese was divided into areas controlled by different sovereigns, as happened with Reims, Münster, and Bremen. A host of additional problems arose from the fact that many abbeys and bishoprics owned parcels of land situated in far-off regions, and these now came under “foreign” political control. Nevertheless, circumstances militated against the unitary ideal. Political realism dictated the creation of new dominions that could be ruled effectively by separate kings and their followers.

#middle ages #crusader kings iii #france #germany #history

1 note · View note

twelvebyseventyfive · 7 years

Text

Top wines from ProWein 2017

Three famous South Africans caught at ProWein

[This is a post in collaboration with my Canadian colleague Treve Ring.]

There are wine trade shows the world over, but there is only one that covers all bases from vintage Port to natural wine, from bag-in-box to classed Bordeaux, and from products ranging from Canada to China to Columbia to Champagne. Every March, the wine world heads to Düsseldorf, Germany, transforming this small city on the Rhine into an epic wine HQ – at least for its three days. ProWein is the world’s largest wine trade show, filling nine giant exhibition halls at Messe Düsseldorf with over 6400 exhibitors from 60 countries, and 55000 visitors to drink it all in – literally. Much more than an opportunity to taste (although you quite literally can taste from anywhere in the world), ProWein is the major meeting place for the global wine community, and where agents, importers, media – and noticeably NOT consumers (pros only) – meet to make deals and exchange cards. We spent three full days at the event tasting, filming, and for Jamie, presenting. Here are each of our 10 most memorable wines tasted over the event (these selections were made independently, so any overlap is unintentional), plus links to the films shot each day. (Treve Ring)

Jamie’s selection:

Filipa Pato Post Quercus Baga 2015 Bairrada, Portugal 11% alcohol. Fermented and aged in amphora, 40% whole bunch. This is a beautiful wine that’s floral and structured with fresh, silky red cherry and plum fruit with some nice grippy structure. Precise raspberry and cherry fruit. So fine and textural, this is great stuff. 95/100

Vidal Legacy Chardonnay 2015 Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand Lovely intense spiciness on the nose with some nice matchstick reduction. Lemony and fine, with some pear richness, white peach fruit and subtle toast. Lovely mineral dimension, too. 95/100

Champagne Vazart Cocquart Special Club Blanc de Blancs 2009 France Aged under cork. There’s a subtle toastiness here, with lovely rounded pear and citrus fruit, and a hint of baked apple. Very delicate with a lemony edge. Shows finesse. 94/100

Schloss Gobelsburg Ried Lamm 1er Cru Grüner Veltliner 2015 Kamptal, Austria Lively, fresh and complex with good acidity. Very lemony and taut with a lovely peppery edge to the fruit. Very fine spicy notes, finishing peppery and lively. 94/100

Disznoko Kapi Vineyard 6 Puttonyos 2011 Tokaji, Hungary This is from a single plot on south-facing slopes. Intense, fragrant and lemony with amazing acidity under the complex sweet flavours of honey, spice, apricot and marmalade. Amazing acidity counters the sweetness, and this is linear and fine, with incredible structure and power. 97/100

Quinta do Noval Colheita 1964 Douro, Portugal Wonderfully spicy and intense with lovely intensity and complexity. Notes of old furniture and orange peel, with lots of spiciness. Beautiful freshness and detail here, showing superb concentration and an endless finish. Pristine; almost perfect. 97/100

Tolpuddle Vineyard Chardonnay 2015 Tasmania, Australia Pure, linear and transparent with fresh, bright lemony fruit. Has nice purity with some grapefruit character. This is light and elegant with real finesse, but it’s not lacking in concentration. 94/100

FIO Falkenberg Riesling Trocken 2015 Mosel, Germany This wine is from the FIO collaboration between Dirk Niepoort and Philipp Kettern, and it’s fermented and aged in large old wood barrels. Very fine, taut and superbly mineral. Transparent and fine with expressive fruit. Harmonious and weightless with great precision. 96/100

Niepoort Turris 2013 Douro, Portugal From a very old 0.8 hectare plot, this is 30% whole bunch and spends two years in old fuders. Elegant, fine, supple raspberry and red cherry fruit with hints of apple and spice. Elegant with lovely acid structure. Fresh cherries and raspberries with hood structure and acid. This starts gently, but then just grows and grows on you. Remarkable. 96/100

Crystallum Peter Max Pinot Noir 2015 South Africa 30% whole cluster. Pure floral aromatic nose with sweet cherries and plums. Elegant and supple with lovely purity and finesse on the palate. Red cherry, red currant and lovely silkiness and weight. 95/100

Treve’s selection:

Philippe Pacalet 2013 Gevrey-Chambertin, Burgundy, France Philippe Pacalet carries on in the vein of his uncle Marcel Lapierre with his terroir-centric, non-interventionist wines. This is from 45-year-old vines in six different lieux-dits, fermented wild and aged one year on the lees, with the only additions being minimal sulphur at bottling. Floral raspberry, forest berries, dusky cherry is veined with a wild herbal note and bright, red currant-tinged acidity. Mid-weight but lifted, there is a fine textural grip on the tannins to structure. 93/100

Graham Beck 2016 Cuvée Clive, Robertson, South Africa From Pieter Ferriera, godfather of fizz is South Africa, this is the winery’s premium MCC (Method Cap Classique) and only produced in exceptional years. Previous years have been 2001, 2009 and 2007. “No rules” according to Pieter, the 2016 is a blend of 80/20 Chardonnay/Pinot Noir from their Robertson limestone-laced vineyards, partially fermented in oak and with 60 months on the lees before bottling. The newly released 2016 expresses with crystalline lemon, scented salted plum, minerals, earthy lees and an exceptional depth and reach. The finish is lengthy, and this will continue to build and impress with cellaring. Impressive. 94/100

Giesen The Fuder 2012 Sauvignon Blanc, Marlborough, New Zealand This organic single vineyard Dillons Point Savvy was from wild ferment 25-year-old vines, aged in 1000L German oak fuder (cigar shaped) for a lower oak to volume ratio, and was bottled unfined and unfiltered. Intense white asparagus, savoury lemon thistle, fine flinty ash on the gentle lemon curd palate finishes with a snap of brisk lemon acidity to brighten and carry. Broken stones and salts on the lengthy finish. This is not about the fruit, and will honey and deepen with age. 94/100

Tolpuddle 2015 Chardonnay, Tasmania, Australia Tolpuddle is the Tasmania project of Adelaide Hills’ Shaw + Smith owners/cousins Martin Shaw and Michael Hill Smith MW, who continued their focus on cool-climate wines with this site in NE Tazzie’s windy and maritime Coal River Valley. Cream, fine pear, marine salinity and delicate reductive notes, with bright, lemon acidity slicing through and lifting the lees complexities up. This vintage of the barrel-fermented, fuller white went through 100% MLF, though has ample bright acidity to carry. Apple butter and fine stony spice on the finish of this fresh, youthful wine, one that moves with understated fluidity, and potential to age very well. 93/100.

Fio Reserve 2013, Mosel, Germany Fio was formed in July 2016, a joint partnership between Portugal’s Dirk and Daniel Niepoort, and Germany’s Phillip Kettern, of Weingut Lothar Kettern. Fio Reserve is Riesling from Falkenberg, a higher, cooler, steep site, and was produced fundamentally non-interventionist. Fermented wild and spending 2.5 years in old German foudres (no MLF) before being bottled without sulfur or filtration, this is alluringly salty, with a mineral ring and haunting oxidative notes. The line and cut of acidity is impressive, as is the intensity, considering the 10.5 percent alcohol (oh, Mosel). Impressively lengthy, this will age beautifully. 94/100

Niepoort 2013 Turris, Douro Valley, Portugal This 0.8 ha Turris single vineyard is more than 130 years old, and located on schistous soils on the right side of the river in the Cima Corgo. The potent fruit is 30% whole bunch pressed before spending two years in very old 1000-2000L old Mosel foudres, followed by 18 months in bottle before being bottled unfined and unfiltered. Savoury stunner, with beauty dark plum, wild blueberry, thorns and dark florals. Elegant and seamless on the medium-plus palate (12.5%), but with a textured fine grip, toothsome tannins and stony salts echoing on the finish. This is an impressive young, tight wine with real gravitas, starting gentle, and growing on the palate with each sip. 95/100

Hattingley Valley 2013 King’s Cuvee, Hampshire, England A sneak preview of the September 2017 release. This is a 70/30 Chardonnay/Pinot Noir blend fermented in, and then selected from the winery’s top barrels before headed to bottle without filtration. Thirty months on the lees, and no MLF (which is rare for English sparkling), this is a serious, full and earthy fizz, with a very direct form, lees-lined palate, and citrus, green apple notes. Lemon pith shimmers on the lengthy finish. 6 g/l dosage. I look forward to retasting when released, and watching this new project grow. 93/100

Leeu Passant Elandskloof Chardonnay, WO Elandskloof, South Africa Leeu Passant is new line debuted at ProWein, from highly lauded couple Chris and Andrea, of Mullineux Wines. One of two 2015 Chardonnays released, with the site being the only difference. This was whole bunch pressed, fermented wild with natural MLF. This higher altitude vineyard is warm in the day and cool at night, holding the freshness, but with the power and concentration from the day sun. Lovely concentration, focus and creamy lees-lined palate in a streamlined frame, with apple, cream and toasted popcorn. Detailed acidity brightens the full and richer style. 92/100

Disznókó Tokaji Aszú 2002 6 Puttonyos, Hungary Disznókó’s vineyards have been considered First Growth since 1732. From fully raisinated and botrytized grapes, a reflection of the ideal 2002 autumn. Pouring a deep golden hue, this potent sweetie is full with white honey, lemon cured, waves of ash and dried apricot and pear. There’s an addictive savoury brown butter undercurrent here, providing a contrast to the sweet richness, and setting it off beautifully. Length goes forever. 94/100

Luke Lambert 2015 Yarra Valley Nebbiolo, Victoria, Australia One of the rare Nebbiolos that excels as an expat from its native Piemonte. From two rocky and granitic vineyards in the hills of Yarra Valley, fermented wild on skins for one month and matured in large old oak before being bottled without fining or filtration. An alluring hay and wild herb note woven throughout this crisp and frisky, young, lighter bodied red. Salted black plum, floral cherry, perfumed wildflowers are textured with grippy, fine tannins and completed with a lingering dried floral and pink pepper note. Decant and serve slightly cooler for best enjoyment. Quite characterful and unique – a bright new lens for Nebbiolo. 92/100

youtube

from jamie goode's wine blog http://www.wineanorak.com:/wineblog/uncategorized/top-wines-from-prowein-2017 For Fine Wine Investment opportunities check out Twelve by Seventy Five: http://www.twelve-by-seventy-five.com/

0 notes