Talk:Kingdom of León
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Er, this bit needs rephrasing:
- They turned their back on the unnavigable Atlantic Ocean, infested with Vikings and sea monsters, and settled in the meseta, the high tableland of central Spain.
since, while there were certainly Vikings, there weren't any sea monsters. --Saforrest 20:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
what a shame I did like that prhase.Jfreyre
- That it was not infested with sea monsters is our POV, not theirs. The phrase might have seemed flip to someone who had never seen an old map. --Wetman 21:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are excerpts from the third and fourth paragraphs of the "emergence of the kingdom" section:
"In these clashes in an impoverished and isolated culture, where salt-making and a blacksmith's forge counted as industries, the armies that decided the fate of the kingdoms numbered in the hundreds of fighting men.
Directly to the south of León lay the incalculably rich, sophisticated and powerful Caliphate of Cordoba, like a Western Byzantium. Internal dissensions divided Andalusian loyalties in the 11th century, so that the impoverished Christians who had been sending tribute to the Caliphate, found themselves in a position to demand payments (parias) instead, in return for favours to particular factions or as simple extortion."
The phrase "the incalculably rich, sophisticated and powerful Caliphate of Cordoba" sounds like something that Cordoba's PR officers would have written, and not something that you would find in a history textbook. - Todemo
[edit] Unknown reasons
"The city of León was founded by the Roman Seventh Legion (for unknown reasons always written as Legio Septima Gemina ("twin seventh legion")."
I think the second part which is written between the brackets schould be deleted.
- It doesn't belong to this article about the the Kingdom of Leon, but to the VII. Legion.
- I question if such formulations like "for unknown reasons" belong to Wikipedia.
- I question if the translation "twin seventh legion" is correct, sounds more like speculation to me.
I don't know the naming convention of roman legions. My first impression is that they are simply numbered in order. 'Legio I' = 1. Legion. Then they get additional designations, something like nicknames, but always attached to their number. Then new legions have been raised with the same number of already existing legions, but with different nicknames. So number and nickname had always to be combined, to assure a differentiation. For example there have been 6 legion with the designation number 'I', differentiated by their nicknames. Thus I wouldn't say, it's unknown why the Legion was named 'Legio Septima Gemina'. It's just roman naming convention. What I don't know is why the Romans used the same number several times. But some historians might know that. [1]
In the case of the legion from Leon, a 7th legion already existed, the 'Legio VII Claudia Pia Fidelis'. I don't know why the Emperor, who created this legion, choose a number that was already used by another region. But the nickname 'Gemina' is easy to guess, as twin of the already existing 7th legion. This is of course a guess, but very likely true, concerning the context, and a historian might confirm that. And there are other legions with the same nickname 'Gemina' but different numbers, numbers they share with other legions of different nickname.
The given translation into English "twin seventh legion" might cause confusion to readers, not only to the translator himself, as he expressed, accompanying the translation. I think the number should be taken as number and can be translated, while the nickname should be taken as name and thus remain untranslated. A better translation might be "7th Legion Gemina", "Legion 7th Gemina" or "7th Gemina Legion". Or better, as I read in other texts "7th Gemina". In any way in this order: first number, second nickname. Truchses 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fernán Gonzalez, King??
"at which time count Fernan Gonzalez of Castile began a campaign to expand Burgos and make it independent and hereditary. He took upon himself the title King of Castile, after the numerous castles in the area, and continued expanding his kingdom at the expense of León by allying with the Caliphate of Cordoba, until 966, when he was stopped by Sancho".
This isn't correct. Fernán Gonzalez never strived (or achieved) a kingly title. Castile was at the time the 'eastern' mark of the Leonese Kingdom, and a series of counties. What Fernán Gonzalez did achieve was the unification of all these counties in his own person, establishing a united, hereditary and autonomous County of Castile. The title 'King of Castile' appears much later, and is first used by Ferdinand I, son of Sancho the Great of Navarre and founder of the Navarrese dinasty. If you take a look at the entry dedicated to 'Ferdinand I of Leon' (he became King of Leon later) you will see the correctness of this information, and the kingly title of Castile as a new creation of the time.
Cheers.
62.175.18.115 11:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Manuel