The succession of the counts of Troyes from the 9th to the 10th century can be established in the following manner. Aleran, mentioned in 837, died before the 25th of April 854. Odo (or Eudes) I. appears as a count on the 25th of April 854, and seems to have stripped of his dignities in January 859. Raoul, or Rudolph, maternal uncle of King Charles the Bald, was count of Troyes in 863 and 864, and died on the 6th of January 866. Odo I. seems to have entered again into possession of the countship of Troyes after the death of Raoul, and died himself on the 10th of August 871. Boso, afterwards king of Provence, received the countship in ward after the death of Odo I. A royal diploma was granted at his request, on the 29th of March 1877, to the abbey of Montier-la-Celle in Troyes. Odo II., son of Odo I., became count of Troyes on the 25th of October 877. Robert I., brother of Odo II., was count from 879. He married Gisla, sister of kings Louis III. and Carloman, and was killed by the Northmen in 886. Aleaume, nephew of Robert I., is mentioned in 893. Richard, son of the viscount of Sens Garnier, is styled count of Troyes in a royal diploma of the 10th of December 926. He was living in 931. Herbert I., already count of Vermandois, succeeded Richard, and died in 943. Robert II., one of the five sons of Herbert of Vermandois, is called count of Troyes in an act of the 6th of August 959, and died in August 968. Herbert II. the Old, younger brother of Robert II., succeeded him and died between 980 and 983. Herbert III. the Young, nephew and successor of Herbert II., died in 995. Stephen I., son and successor Herbert III., was alive in 1019. His successor was his cousin, Odo II., count of Blois. From the 11th century the counts of Troyes, whose domains increased remarkably, are commonly designated by the names of counts of Champagne.
See H. d’Arbois de Jubainville, Histoire des ducs et des comtes de Champagne (1859), vol. i.; F. Lot, Les Derniers Carolingiens (1891), pp. 370–377; A. Longnon, Documents relatifs au comté de Champagne et de Brie (1904), ii. 9, note.
