Talk:Kingdom of Galicia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Gallaecia?!

Buff. I'm sorry for my absence in the debate. Writing here means hours of work (searching, sourcing, editing, correcting...) and I have -as most- a work, a woman, a life, and some other personal projects... And it's frustrating to spend time in what looks as a debate but I'm not sure it is; I mean, in a debate if someone ask for proofs about a fact, and another one offers what he or she considers to be a proof, then they normally proceed to a evaluation of that new data. This have not happen. Well, my recognition to the past and present work of Nuninho and the other editors.

  • 1.- “Asturian” kings probably didn't conquer Galicia or Portugal to the Arabs. First, there's no archaeological or toponymical evidence of Arab or Moor garrisons or colonists in Galicia or Portugal during the 8th century -the 9th century is well documented and the Arabs or Moors are absent of that local documentation, with the sole exception of war prisoners dealt as slaves-. Of course, it is rigorously false that a Muslim governor was in Tui at any time -there is no mention of this fact in the chronicles (chronicles, not Chronicles, they are not the Bible) of Albelda, Rota, or the interpolated Ad Sebatianus, which I'm using right now in their original Latin redaction, nor it is this fact mentioned by Arab authors -I expect that throwing opportunistic assertions hopping that they will pass as true if they are not refuted won't became Olympic-. What this chronicles say is that Tui was the residence of Wittiza, as King of the Suevi, when he was associated to the throne by his father Egica. Second, the Ajbar Maymua (a Muslim chronicle from C10th) refers that the Muslins left all of Yilliquiya (Galicia, but probably in reference to modern day Asturias) in 750 after being defeated by the Christians, passing first the mountains into Astorga, then leaving to Coria and Merida in the southern half of Iberia after being defeating by several years of drought (cf. Carballeira Debasa, Galicia y los Gallegos en las Fuentes Arabes... ISBN: 978-8400085766: 128-129). So, by 750 -if not before- all of Galicia and most of the NW of the peninsula has been abandoned by the Arabs and Moors. So when Alfonso I “conquers” the cities north of the Duero river he does not fight muslins -with the probably exception of Astorga, last stand of the Arabs- but local powers that do not acknowledge him as king; aside from dealing with the periodicals Muslim “azeifas” or predatory attacks, kings like Alfonso I or Froila didn't engross their kingdoms fighting with the Arabs, but expanding its authority either by pact (an thus the chronicle of Silo in a passage declares Galicians as 'league-breaking'; colaboration with local powers as strategy can be clearly documented from Sobrado, W Galicia, where a document from 818 shows a past joint venture of the king and the local bishop Kindulfus: the past re-foundation of a community -'Villa Ustullata', actual Vilouchada, Latin toponym which replaced the Celtic Lentobre “Castle of the Hillside”- with people from Galicia and from Asturias). The expansion of this authority happened also at the expense of local powers, and hence the frequent conflict with Galicians and Basques during C8th.
  • 2.- Xareu, you are concerned on Lopez Carreira's book O Reino de Galiza ISBN 8496403548 deliberately ignoring Christian an Muslim chronicles and elaborating a whole new theory. Too much concern in fact for not having read, flipped or held the book in the hands. First, there's nothing really new in his book; it's a manual better than an essay, and the author is not an expert in High Middle Ages, but in urban life in Galicia C13th-C16th, and a reputed editor of sources (council acts, private charters, notebooks of notaries...) of the same period, space and language. In the 6 fist pages of the 30 where he analyses the historiography and sources for the high Middle Ages, he cites works and words from Cirujano/Elorriaga, Imman Fox, Murguia, Vicetto, Modesto Lafuente, Mariana, Florez, Menendez Pidal, Sanchez Albornoz, Pérez de Urbel, Maravall... As I said before, the bibliographical references are +350, and he writes little thing that he don't backs with the words of some other author. And what about sources? Let's see, “Conformation of the Galician Monarchy (C8th-C10th)”: p 144: cites Orlandis as a reference; p. 145: cites Al-Maccari, Akhbar Maymua, and the “Mozarab” chronicle as sources; p. 146: cites Chronicon Moissiacense, Akhbar Maymua, Al-Maccari, and the Memories of Abd Allah as sources, Sanchez Albornoz as reference; p. 147: cites Al-Maccari, Ibn al-Hakan and Rotense as sources; Sanchez Albornoz as reference; In the next pages he cites the chronicles of Silos, Rota, Ad Sebastianus and Albelda, documents from Sahagun and Leon, the Fuero Antiguo de Navarra, critics from Barrau-Dihigo... The book of Mr. López Carreira is heavily sourced and referenced. Of course, it's not compulsory to agree with his interpretation -I frequently disagreed with him as I was reading this book-. So, if I write this is because I just find unjust that someone that have not read the book can criticize it with such rudeness and even write that the author deliberately ignores the sources he exhaustively uses. As for Celtiberia.net, it was a nice place for debating and leaning -not a syndicate of referees- where many of the participants, like myself, didn't participate when tension rose up and debate broke in personal or ideological or territorial attacks.
  • 3.- Incidentally, yes, I have provided some sources and materials into the debate: I wrote points 9, 10 and 11 of this talk page. I don't know if they are a answer to any question, but for sure they are a firm base for some assertions. And it is not true that sources are scarce. If we define a written source as a parchment, book or stone inscription, containing either a public document of any kind, a literary or artistic work, or a chronicle on past or contemporary events, then, and just for Galicia, we have a few dozens for the Suevic period (short ones as the inscriptions in the coins of king Reckila, and extensive ones as the chronicle of Hidacio, the Parrochiale Suevorum, or the works of St. Martin of Braga), just a few for the Visigothic one; some documents for the C8th, over a hundred for the C9th, less than a thousand for C10th, a few thousands from 1000 until 1200 AD, then tens of thousands until 1530 -most of the later in Galician language, the former were in Latin-, and millions since 1530 -most of then in Castilian Spanish, though Galician is present in all the period and it became widely used again since C19th-. Just the acts of the Juntas of the Kingdom in the C17th, recently edited and published, take thirteen volumes.
  • 5.- The modern words Galicia and Galiza are Galician local evolutions -relatively modern, from C11th-C12th- of the vulgar Latin Gallecia, itself a evolution of classic Gallaecia, from Callaecia, from the local tribe of the Kallaikoi, a word meaning something like the 'hill-dweller' (kall- was probably a cognate of Latin COLLIS, English hill, Lituanian kalna, cf. J.J Moralejo, Callaicia Nomina, ISBN 978-8495892683 : 113-134). So, Galicia and Gallaecia are the same word, and so the Latin WP presents the word Gallaecia for actual and past Galicia, as autonomous community or as Roman province (cf. Gallaecia = Galicia). All right, not only the word has evolved, also the country which locals and foreigners know as Galicia have changed -and this changes were also in the article Nuninho was working out-. In the fist centuries of our time Gallaecia comprised actual Galicia and north of Portugal. In the 3th century the Romans promoted Galicia from regio to province, incorporating Asturia and Cantabria, but the westernmost part of that province retained the ancient name Galicia also. During the Suevi rule Galicia lost the lands east of the Cea river, but gained what is today central Portugal. After the Arabs invaded Spain, Galicia becomes a more complicated land: for most of the Arabs and Franks, it comprised all the NW of the Peninsula -in particular, the Arabs known as kings of Galicia the kings that are usually acknowledged as kings of Asturias or of Leon (cf. Carballeira Debasa:127)-, but for locals Galiciu maintained the same territory which she had under the Suevi... And still it existed a restricted size Galicia -under the same word- that comprised just the actual Galicia and northern Portugal. Now, from the C10th the lands around the city of Leon -which previously were known simply as the “Outer Lands”-, main residence of the kings, and a powerful attractor for southern Christian, developed its own identity. As Portugal did, as a frontier country. By the 12th century Galicia, Portugal, Leon and Asturias were different realities, though Galicia and Portugal shared the same language and cultural traditions. And one can not fix the difficulty of the geography of Galicia from C5th to C12th with the trick of designing Gallaecia the old Roman Province and Galicia the lands corresponding to the actual autonomous community, because they are one and the same word, and the people who lived there and then didn't think in the existence of several Galicia, but different human groups have different perceptions of Galicia in different times -and we can not reduce this fact to an anachronistic and linguistic dichotomy Gallaecia/Galicia-: I repeat, Arabs and Franks thought Galicia was all the NW of the Iberian peninsula, Leonese from the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries said they lived this side of the limits of Galicia, as did Portuguese from Coimbra... At the same time people living in Samos thought they really lived by the limits of Galicia -as it is today-! And so there you have references to kings of Galicia / Kingdom of Galicia in reference to a wider Galicia which comprised Leon and Portugal , being territorially identical to the Suevi Kingdom of Galicia of the C6th (Alfonso V, Bermudo III or Fernando II), or kings of Galicia that were kings just in what is now Galicia and Portugal (Ordoño II, Sancho I Ordoñez, Bermudo II, Garcia II...); or just in Galicia (Alfonso VII from its anointment in Santiago in 1111) or later on kings of Galicia or of Galicia and Leon (Fernando II and Alfonso IX, father and son, who reigned almost a hundred years and who rest in company of other lords and queens on the Royal Pantheon of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, capital of Galicia, place where a king can be anointed and where the body of a king can rest forever). References for what I have just said can be found supra in points 9-11. Of course, Galicia have changed throughout history, as did France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Mexico (which lost more than half of its territory to the USA in the C19th), Colombia (which lost Panama to Panama)... Well, that kind of things happens. Anyway, looking back is easy to see that the identity Gallaecia = Gallecia = Galicia have never been lost, and so when Rui Vasquez wrote his chronicle of St. Maria of Iria (C15th, in Galician Language), using as sources the C11th Chronicle of Iria and C12th Historia Compostellana (both in Latin), he translated the original instances of Gallaecia / Gallecia as Galiza, and used the same word whether he was narrating contemporary, past or remote facts; when the geographer Ojea presented his map of the Kingdom of Galicia (“Descripcion del Reyno de Galizia”) to the Count of Lemos in 1603, he wrote in the legend: “[The Kingdom of Galicia] was in the past much larger than it is today, and comprised all the lands and provinces encompassed by the next limits: from the North Sea and the mountains by Biscay until the springs of the Duero river, from there to the sea, and then walking by the shore until we reach the departure”... By the way, Castella (Latin 'The Castles'), the ancient name of Castille, evolved locally into Castiella, then into Castilla. It don't represent a different reality, but a different moment in the development of the Spanish Language, as Gallaecia > Gallecia > Galicia / Galiza correspond to different moments in the development of Galician Language (Spanish word Gallicia was substituted by Galician Galicia some centuries ago). Froaringus (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I can´t discuss with you is you are saying such things"is rigorously false that there was a gobernor in Tuy"..Indeed there was one (I´ll try to reference the primary source, I don´t remember by heart, but it´s cited in the book "La apasionante historia del reino de Asturias"), of Jose Javier Esparza, which is in my opinion rather biased towards the Spanish traditional view, but it´s well documented.

There were also Berber garrisons in Lugo, which were abandoned when this tribe revolved against the Arabs. The Chronicles DO say that Alfonso I occupied a number of cities, some of them in Galicia, yes. I agree it was not a conquest, because most of the Berbers had left and the Galician were not enemies at all. But you´re acknowledging they joined the Kingdom, not created it nor ruled in it. By the way, in Thompson´s book there is no connection between the Suevi Kingdom and that of Asturias (or of Oviedo), please don´t overstate cites.Why do you say I´ve not read Mr Carreira´s book?. I have gone through it, and yes, it has many sources, but not supporting his interpretations. He takes a factual account and creates a new idea of his own fitting his likes, finishing with something wholly different from the Chronicles (yes, they´re not the Bible but I trust them more than a book written some 1200 years after, especially in a case such as this with so scarce historical or archaelogical remnants other than them). I´m not trying to deny the existence of the Kingdom of Galicia, I´m just saying that between 711 and 911 there was not a Kingdom of Galicia.There is not a single reference in the contemporary Christian Chronicles . The Arabs called all the christians Galiks, Yliks, etc, even Ibn Marwan (a Hispanic Muslim rebel against Córdoba), from Merida, is called so. As for the connection Suebic Kingdom-Galicia Kingdom (with the Kings you name), I do not think it´s so clear, but I´m focusing in the Asturian period.By the way, when the Church is organized in Asturias, the Suebic Parroquial (I do not know the exact name in English, I mean the list of parishes used also for administrative purposes) is ignored in Asturias. I think it´s a sign of disconnection between Suebic and Asturian Kingdoms. I do not agree with your interpretation of the Gallaecia-Galicia direct link for the territorial part. Of course Galicia evolved from Gallaecia, but never did the Kings called themselves Galicians, as I´ve stated before, some of them ever suppresed Galician revolts. Gallaecia had covered Cantabria (the initial core of the Kingdom along with the Luggonum Asturorum) in some periods, but in others it belonged to other administrative divisions. Both tribes never part of the Suebic Kingdom. When Alfonso III is kindly invited to leave power by his sons, the Kingdom is broken up in three parts:Ordoño II, (GALICIA), Fruela (Asturias) and García (León). Who was the "leader"?. García.There were still Courts in Asturias and in Galicia, but for my part I wouldn´t say that a Kingdom of Asturias still existed in this period. When he dies where does Ordoño move his Court to?.León. Again, when Ordoño II dies where does Fruela set his pendant in?.León. Now it was clear that the Kingdom was of León, as it´ll be in the centuries to come. And to relax the tone of this discussion, I´m adding this link (only for the map, the rest frightens, both Arans and Spanish). Of course, it´s not a source!:).[1]--Xareu bs (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Who were the kings of Galicia from VIII century?

??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.22.72.95 (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This article has no historical basis. "usually" Called The Kingdom of Asturias has not been created by any myth of the Iberian nations. Otherwise is the name used by the sources of the VIII century (chronicles Rotense and Albeldense)

This chronicles transcribes "regnum asturorum", "princeps asturorum" and refers to Galicia as "partibus Gallaeciae." That is, part of the kingdom of Asturias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.22.72.95 (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is some confusion on Galician history because there were several Galicias in Europe in ancient times and it's thought that the Suebi and Visigothic occupation of a territory called Galicia actually occurred in Galicia - region of modern Poland and not in the Iberian Peninsula where such an occupation is currently being attributed. Indeed, there's not only single piece of reliable evidence to my knowledge that a Suebi or Visigothic kingdom ever occupied any lands in the Iberian peninsula. Not one grave of a Visigoth or Suebi has ever been found in the Iberian Peninsula much less the Iberian Galicia. Yet such graves are found in their dozens in Polish Galicia where the Suebi and Visigoths were known to inhabit. I find it strange how modern translations have placed a non-Iberian people such as the Germanic Suebi or the Scythian Visigoths in Iberian lands. Interesting how not one single word from these said Suebi-Viisigothic people has survived in the modern Galician language. Also find it odd how they very suddenly vanished from Iberia - maybe they were never there to start with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.198.59 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Two words: Too much! Anyway, on the history of the Sueves of Galicia, main sources are the Chronicle of Hydatius, The Seven Books against the Pagans by Orosius, the History of the Goths by Isidore of Seville, the History of the Franks and the Miracles of St. Martin by Gregory of Tours, The Getica by Jordanes, the Chronicle of John of Biclaro, not to mention the Suevi coinage, the acts of the Councils of Braga, where the bishops of Galicia (Braga, Lugo, Ourense, Tui...) were called by the Kings, or the many works of St. Martin of Braga, the acts of the Councils of Toledo, or the medieval documentation, where most Galicians used sonorous Germanic names. This Germanic names had developed a rich toponymy in Galicia and Northern Portugal. By the way, in Galicia not less than four parishes and several villages are names Suevos and Suegos, i.e. Sueves.
On Germanic words in Galician (Spanish/Portuguese) language, it would be enough to consult the works of Meyer-Lübke: [Romanishes etymologisches Wörterbuch http://www.archive.org/stream/romanischesetymo00meyeuoft#page/n5/mode/2up]. Anyway, among other well known Galician Germanisms you can find some tens that are exclusive or/and very old: laverca 'lark', britar 'to break', brétema 'fog', escá 'recipient', lobio '(vine) gallery', luvas 'gloves', roán 'red', estricar 'stretch', agasallar 'to receive in ones home, to give, to share', trigar 'to urge'... --Froaringus (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight and POV

I am in the process of some revisions. I know it is an article about Galicia, but the role of Galicia after Garcia II is very much exaggerated as the article currently reads, and there are also significant POV issues that I will be addressing as time permits (like the "infliction" of Ferdinand III on Galicia). I know these will be unpopular among some, so let me clarify. The article continues to refer to the Kingdom of Galicia-Leon, and of the Galician-Leonese monarchy. This is giving a weight to the Galician component of this realm that is completely absent from English-Language sources. Search Google Books for "Kingdom of Leon" and you get 16,000 hits, for "Kingdom of Galicia", less than 5000, for "Kingdom of Leon-Galicia", 63, and for "Kingdom of Galicia-Leon", 9, and most of these are irrelevant to the question. Others would argue that these were two distinct kingdoms in personal union under a single monarch, but that is not how the English-language sources portray it - in fact, most of them fail to mention Galicia entirely, and those that do treat it as an administrative unit within a larger realm, which they call the Kingdom of Leon, rather than as an independent kingdom that happened to share the same king. In fact, the whole idea of personal union is a modern one, and a modern one that seems not to be applied in this case. Yes, the kings continued to use the title of King of Galicia, particularly in acts relating to Galicia, just as they used King of Toledo, but that is a matter of style and not substance. From the time of its conquest, Toledo was never viewed as anything but an administrative unit of a larger realm, and the same is true of Galicia for most of this period. The last Galician state was that of Garcia II. This idea of a Galician kingdom existing for over 1000 years seems entirely unknown outside of Galicia (and mirrors of this Wikipedia article). Agricolae (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to highlight this point, search Google Books for "Alfonso IX, King of Leon" and you get 318 matches. Search for Alfonso IX, King of Galicia and you get none, for "Alfonso IX, King of Leon-Galicia", none, "Alfonso IX, King of Leon and Galicia", 3. THe numbers aren't as extreme for Fernando II, but show the same pattern ("of Leon" is 10 times that for "of Leon and Galicia"). This is reflective of the mindset in English sources, and should be reflected in English Wikipedia. Agricolae (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

May it be, incidentally, that English sources are secondary and based in Spanish traditionalist views? Isn't it somewhat fallacious to argue a supposed English mindset as a base to change an article about a foreign territory? May it be, another time, that you are trying to loophole your own Spanish traditionalist views usign an English mindset as an excuse? Just asking ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.27.6.15 (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC) /small>

Flag

I was just wondering wether the alledged arms of the Suevic Kings of Gallaecia (combatant green dragon and red lion on a golden field) should be included in this article somewhere, either as the main flag or as a supporting image... There seems to be some solid evidence for the design of the flag itself, both written and inherited in other heraldic devices that survived in Portugal.

http://www.bandeiragalega.com/es/gallaecia.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatonegro (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting facts

  • Interesting fact, the kings being called Galician.
  • I'm most interested in the transition of the Visigoths to the Moors and the Christian states. these is the most badly explained and while studying local history, I tried hard to find data from the Moor period in and around the city, and all that I got was just misconceptions But there is a "carreira mourisca" (Moorish route) running throw Povoa de Varzim, and it appears as early as 953. "et inde per carraria maurisca et inde ad archa qui sta super ipsa villa". It seems that Northern Portugal was stateless and kept being Christian after the invasion. This must be true also in Galicia, explaining the survival of so many irrelevant Germanic names. If the moors controlled it, those would be forgotten. One thing is that it seems the local landlords kept in the land too. --Pedro (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hm now I know what Carraria Mourisca is, it was part of Via Veteres, a Roman Road to Cividade de Terroso and the Roman mines.--Pedro (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kingdom of Galicia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Galicia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Galicia/Archive_2&oldid=1055998376"