Talk:Kingdom of Galicia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Galicia Portal This article is part of WikiProject Galicia which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to Galician history, language and culture. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

	Portugal Portal Kingdom of Galicia is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Portugal To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Portugal Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list

[edit] Recent edits and reversions

There is a user (or users) who keeps removing all the information on the kingdom of Galicia beyond the Suevi kingdom. Furthermore, these edits use some nonencyclopaedic language and some bad English. I do not know the reason for these edits but I have reverted them and will continue to do so until a reasonable and satsifactory explanation (which I cannot forsee) is given. Srnec 18:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impartiality

I consider that, in its current state, this article shows a lack of impartiality (probably, for a political-nationalist purpose). First of all, Gallaecia is identified with Galicia. I know it may seem obvious, but Gallaecia was a Roman province much more extense than present Galicia, not only in the geographical sense but also in the ethnic. I.e., it was not a ethnic division (there were several tribes, such as galaicos, ástures, cantabri, with rather different cultures). When Suevi set their realm, it was not a Galician-Roman Kingdom (the Kings were all barbarians), though they soon adopted the local celtic-Roman culture. Asturian kings, obviously also, were kings of Kingdom of Asturias, which comprised Galicia at that moment (there had not been not such Kingdom of Galicia yet). I´d rather you consulted [1]; it is in Spanish, but I guess it does not require translation. There they are the real documented Kings of Galicia. To end up, most Spanish Kingdoms (which had survived Austrian and Bourbon dynasties) lasted until 1833. Regards, Xareu bs 18:24, 27 February 2006

I don't understand your beef with this article. I see no slant or impartiality in it. The ethnic divisions are mentioned as is the fact that the Suevi were barbarians. The article details those kings who ruled only over an area roughly corresponding to Galicia, ancient or modern. This includes the Asturian kings and the later kings within Castile-León who ruled it as a separate kingdom. Srnec 04:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What I am trying to state is that Gallaecia and Galicia are not the same, (nor are, for example, Tarraconense and Tarragona). There isn´t such historical correspondence. I.e, Asturian kings ruled in Asturias, which at that time was much bigger than now, and in Álava, Castile, etc. There was no Galicia Kingdom at that moment (and there hadn´t been yet).Xareu bs 16:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Gallaecia and Galicia are not identical, but they are the same. The Roman province gives its name to the similar region today called Galicia. In 910, Asturias was divided. There were kings ruling separately in Galicia, Asturias, and León. This division persisted in some form or another so that as late as 1111 there was a king reigning separately in Galicia. Finally, the Suevi kings were called kings of the Suevi, not kings of Galicia or Gallaecia. No kingdom in history has corresponded exactly to the present-day province of Galicia and the barbarian kingdom's borders were constantly fluctuating. Srnec 20:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not the same. Much of the extension to the Roman Province, in fact, does not belong to the region nowdays called Galicia, nor ever has. The name Gallaecia remained in Galicia, as Ál-Andalus is conserved in modern Andalusia, much smaller than its predecessor. The article is about the Kingdom of Galicia, not about the different kingdoms which ruled on what it is now called Galicia. So, one only can talk of a Kingdom of Galicia after the Kingdom of Asturias split.Xareu bs 12:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits removed info about everything but the Suevi kingdom, including the info on the Asturian kingdom. But here you say that only the kingdom after 910 counts. That's inconsistent. The articles is about the different kingdoms which corresponded roughly to Galicia in geographic extent and were considered Galician kingdoms. The Asturian and later Castilian monarchs (such as Fruela II of León, García II of Galicia and Portugal, and Alfonso VII the Emperor) were kings of Galicia, rex Gallaeciae was their title. The Suevi kings are considered Galician by convention because that's the province over which they ruled in fact. Finally, al-Andalus and Andalusia are basically the same thing. One refers to Moslem Spain during the Middle Ages and the other to the modern province of southern Spain which happens to be the cultural heritage of al-Andalus and geographically similar to the Moslem region for much of its history. The fact that geographic boundaries change over time does not mean that all terms must be confined to the past. Al-Andalus and Andalusia are not interchangeable, nor are they identical, but they refer to the same thing, one is modern (a province within the Kingdom of Spain) and the other is medieval (Moslem Spain). Srnec 16:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all: Asturian Chronics from that time (Albeldense, Sebastaniense and Rotense) called the Kingdom as "Asturorum Regnum" or even "Ovetensis Regnum" (you may consult Yves Bonnaz translation from Latin if you speak French/Spanish). Asturian kings regarded themselves as so, not Galician or Galicia kings, nor in a single document.

The article is called "Kingdom of Galicia". Asturian kingdom didn´t correspond roughly to Galicia in geographic extent (unless you consider roughly leaving apart its eastern half).

Secondly, saying that al-Andalus and Andalusia are basically the same thing is an incredibly inaccurate common place. Most of southern-central Spain has this heritage, and conversely in some parts of Andalusia it is quite dim (did you know about the process of "repoblación"?. Even in places far away from Andalusia, for example Teruel, the Ál Andalus heritage is important (mudéjar sytle sets its realm there). If you want to regard Suevi-Asturian-Galician Kingdoms as a continuum, you should edit the article about Galician history, but not an article entitled "Kindgom of Galicia". Xareu bs 16:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we're having a lot of problems communicating here. Let me try and clear up what you're saying so I can respond properly.

Firstly, I am never referring to the kingdom of the Asturias before 910. To what are you referring in your most recent response? In 910, the kingdom of Asturias had grown beyond its original bounds and beyond the bounds of the Asturias mountain region, past or present. In that year, Alfonso III died and his kingdom was partitioned between his three sons into Galicia, Asturias, and León. These are the terms used. Similar to the way the Franks divided their realm many times under the Merovingians creating kingdoms we call Austrasia and Neustria (though they themselves called all their kings reges Francorum). I assume you know all this already. What then is your problem with referring to the kingdom of Fruela II and his successors, until its permanent reunion with the others, as Galicia?

Secondly, Ferdinand I divided his realm into three kingdoms as well, giving León to Alfonso VI, Castile to Sancho II, and Galicia to García, who called himself "king of Galicia and Portugal." García lost Galicia to Sancho and it went, on Sancho's death, to Alfonso and, on his death to Urraca, who gave it to her son Alfonso VII in 1111. He was titled king of Galicia, but thereafter Galicia remained attached to León.

Thirdly, I think you misunderstand (perhaps it's my fault) what I am trying to convey when I say that Gallaecia and Galicia are not identical, but they are the same and the when I say the same thing about al-Andalus and Andalusia. I am trying to say that modern political divisions, such as Galicia and Andalucía, are based on historical regions whose borders have fluctuated a lot in their long history. The blanket statement that Gallaecia and Galicia are too entirely different things is as wrong as the statement that they are indistinguishable. I think that you misunderstand the purpose of this page. It was to concentrate the many royals who have ruled over Galicia as a separate kingdom over time, the Suevi are incorporated for comprehensiveness and completion. Perhaps the opening paragraph should clear this up. The "Kingdom of Galicia" had been different things at different times. What do you think this page should be about and why is kingdom of Galicia not a good title, all the kings but the Suevi were kings of the same "thing" (used loosely)?

Finally, I have heard of the repobalción. Srnec 01:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As you state on the first paragraph of your last edit, in 910 the Kingdom of Galicia appeared for the first time, after the Kingdom of Asturias had split off. That´s plain history. Galicia, in the flows and ebbs of history, had an independent Kingdom or belonged to León/Castile again for several times. What I´m trying to say is that Kingdom of Galicia isn´t about the kings that ruled on Galicia, but about the history of the independent Kingdom, in its different moments along centuries. If you were to write an article on Dutch Monarchy, would you consider the Austrian (Habsbourgh) dinasty kings as kings of the Kingdom of the Nederlands? I guess you wouldn´t.Xareu bs 14:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are opposed to the inclusion of the Suevi here, why did you remove all the other information in your previous edits? That's what I don't understand.

What is the Kingdom of Galicia? It was never a nation-state. I agree that the barbarian Suevi were not kings of Galicia in the same way as the subsequent Asturian kings, but they are kings of Galicia because we often refer to barbarian kings as rulers over certain territories, in fact, it was prevalent at the time. The Visigothic kings are usually called kings of Spain, though not in the same sense as later Spanish monarchs up to the present day. The Suevi should stay here for completeness' sake. The article needs to include all information on independent Galician kingdoms, not matter how varying in geography and polity those states were. I have one question: do you know if the Suevi kings ever called themselves reges Gallaeciae? Srnec 19:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did know. It means "Kings of Gallaecia (the former Roman Province)". Usually, when talking about Visigothic Kingdom, it is stated as such or even as Kingdom of Toledo (after their capital); the claim that they were Kings of Spain is not as popular as it was in the past, when, due to ideological purposes, Spanish Monarchy regarded itself as heir of the Visigoths; I would divide the article in two parts: Suevi Kingdom of Gallaecia (stating that in a broad sense some people regard it as a Kingdom of Galicia), and Medieval Kingdom of Galicia.

Regards, Xareu bs 14:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Before I respond directly to your points raised most recently, I will disclaim any personal interest in this issue on the basis of language, nationality, or ethnicity. I am not from Spain, never lived in Spain, and I only speak some Spanish as a second language. I have no nationalist agendum of any kind. I fear that you may suspect I do.

Firstly, I was asking you if they were ever called such. I myself wasn't sure, though I suspected it. You confirmed what I suspected. This article contains only those who considered themselves (and were considered by contemporaries) kings of Galicia.

Secondly, the current king, Juan Carlos, is the successor, in some sense, of the Visigothic kings. He is not their successor in a direct line of succession, becaues for most of its history, Spain has had multiple lines of succession in multiple kingdoms. The Visigothic kingdom was the first kingdom centred on and mostly including only Iberia. With its demise, the kingdom in the Asturias claimed to be its successor. Indeed, it was a Gothic, Christian kingdom which was indeed a successor to the Visigothic state. All the remaining kingdoms of medieval Spain either sprouted from Asturias or Navarre, which was not a Visigothic successor state but a tribal one based on the Basque nation. However, all these kingdoms were united at one point or another and their final union formed Spain as we know it. The modern Reino de España can be considered a combination of two basic traditions: the Visigothic (which had incorporated the Roman and any Celtiberian influences on that) and the Basque (which had incorporated a lot of Frankish influences through both Navarre itself and Catalonia, which developed its own unique culture and, through Basque Navarre, state). In turn, all these states were influenced by al-Andalus. Personally, I think its said that some people in Spain who are themselves not Castilian, cannot seem to see Spain as the glorious product of centuries of competing influences cultural, linguistic, political, and religious from many different nations and states.

Finally, I broke down the article differently as per your suggestion. Srnec 22:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Srnec you said "the current king, Juan Carlos, is the successor, in some sense, of the Visigothic kings"... LOL! That is clearly Spanish/Castilian-centered POV! The Iberian peninsula, or Hispania, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also (and Andorra; and Gibraltar!). The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). Please Srnec, do not emply that there is an exclusive direct descent from some of the monarchs of ancient times, namely the Visigoths, to those of modern Spain. Mind you that in most Iberian languages, namely Portuguese and Castillian, "Spain", when refering to the whole of the peninsula, was frequently worded in the plural - they spoke of the "Spains" (As Espanhas or Las Españas) - which has quite different connotations... The Ogre 23:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how I can have a Spanish/Castilian POV when I am neither Spanish nor Castilian. Instead, I charge you with historical ignorance and willfull blindness and having a truly strong anti-Castilian bias. Think for a minute. The statement "the current king, Juan Carlos, is the successor, in some sense, of the Visigothic kings" says nothing about whether that legitimises his rule or not, does it?

Now, I will address each of your points individually. The word Spain is commonly used in modern English in historical contexts to speak of the Iberian peninsula, including the Visigothic kingdom. Your statement about Castilian imperialism trying to control the definition of an English word is patently absurd. Anglophone historians with no connection to Castile have decided what Spain means in the historical sense. Wouldn't it have made more sense to use the word Castilla for the entire nation instead of España if you were intent on imperialism? And what's so wrong with a centralised state?

Read what I wrote again. I precisely identify two independent lines of heritage in the formation of modern Spain: the Visigothic and the Basque. I explain that the latter was nearly wiped out by the Moors in 711, but survived on in the Asturias and its subsequent kingdoms, including Galicia and León. The Visigoths had alread absorbed all the Roman influences on Spain and it is through them that they are tranmitted (as well as the Celtiberian influences on Roman Hispania). Through the Basque polity of Navarre, Teutonic traditions (due to the influence of the barbarian Franks) were sustained a while longer. The Basques were also influenced by the French and it is through Sancho the Great's hegemony that Spain is Europeanised after centuries of marginalisation. Only a century after that did the unique Catalan heritage merge with that of the Navarrese kingdom of Aragón and thus enter Spanish history proper. From there on in, Christian Spain is composed of Castile-León, Navarre, Aragón-Catalonia, and Portugal, the latter an artificial creation which maintained its independence. The three remaining strains united in the sixteenth century and remain united today, though some try to tear them apart. They ultimately all derive from the Visigothic and Basque traditions, which were completely independent of one another.

To clarify: Juan Carlos is an heir of Rodrigo insofar as "no Visigothic kingdom, no modern kingdom." It is impossible to think of Spain developing along its centralising lines without the influence, prevalent throughout the Middle Ages, of the united Spain of the past: namely the Visigoths, whose direct successors the kings of León claimed to be. Finally, when you charge me with implying an exclusive line of descent, you display your inability to read what I wrote. I expressly deny any exclusivity to any heritage.

It seems that you fail to see any historical continuity in the nation called Spain today. Do you think it just happened? Europe was born in the Dark Ages and most of its major states can trace their formation that far back. Srnec 06:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not completely agree with the statement that [Asturian Kinggom] was a direct successor of the Visigoth Kingdom of Toledo. As a matter of fact, in the begging it was a mere reaction of indigenous people to Moorish invasion (and taxes). Nowadays, Pelayo (its first chief) is regarded as a local Asturian nobleman, Ástur or Goth, and not as a courtier as it was considered by historians in the past. He had lands in Asturias long before year 721. Those regions (Asturias and Cantabria)comprised on the early moments of the Kingdom, had been in a situation close to independence during the Visigoth Kingdom, and it is hard to belive that they would have followed a foreign (for them) leader, i.e., a Visigoth from the far away Toledo.

You should bear in mind that Asturian Chronicles were written during the reign of Alfonso III, and tended to glorify (and legitimate the fight against Muslims) the kingdom by considering it a direct heir of the Visigoth Kingdom. But Visigoth influece was only strong on the last centuries of the kingdom, when more and more people from Ál Andalus escaped to the Christian Kingom of the far north. Then was when the idea of Reconquista appeared. Xareu bs 08:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by indigenous peoples? I believe Pelayo was a Visigoth, as was his family and all his successors in Asturias. From the time of Chindasuinth, Goth and Hispano-Roman had been under one law. By the time of the kingdom of Asturias such ethnicities were losing meaning. By Alfonso III's time, Goth and Roman meant next to nothing. Visigoths were spread out over all the kingdom, not just Toledo. Certainly the name Alfonso is Gothic, as is Favila.

Why would the Visigothic legacy be needed to legitimise their defensive action? I am unaware of a migration of Goths to the north at any time in great numbers. The Visigothic kingdom was more than a mere ethnic oligarchy, it was a state, far more influenced by Roman custom, language, and law than Gothic. The most powerful group in the kingdom were the bishops, always predominantly Hispano-Roman. The kingdom of Asturias was a successor in the sense that it was a Christian state, under the rule of a Visigothic family, which did not recognise the Moslem conquest as legitimate (obviously). Thus, they saw the Visigothic state as the legitimate one, though the ethnic identities which made it Visigothic were lost in subsequent centuries. Srnec 00:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays, it is being discussed by many Historians that Pelayo was a Visigoth. In fact, his name was not Gothic, and he had posesions in Asturias, which would be only known case of a Visigoth landlord in this zone. The first decades of the kingdom was of Astur and Cantabri rule (there were not visigoths in the "army" nor in the Church). When the controversy about Adoptionism, Bishop Elipando de Toledo laughs at Beato (Beatus?) saying "how it is that a lebaniego (from Liébana, Cantabria) is teaching us people from Toledo (Visigoth core)". And there was a significant migration of mozárabes to the North, especially after the Mártires de Córdoba event (when Muslim tolerance to Christianity began to decline).

And, indeed, the kingdom did need legitimation, because of two reasons: Alfonso III was heir of the Duke of Cantabria dinasty, which had usurped the crown after a civil war between Ramiro (from this dinasty) and Nepociano (descendant of the Pelayo´s Branch). And they were claiming lands which had never belonged to the people that comprised the Kingdom (Astures, Cantabri, Galicians), so they needed a justification for this claim. Even the Chronicles go "Ástures held a concilium (council) to choose Pelayo as their princeps". It was a traditional institution, of preroma origins. And the society had many indigenous features, such as a kind of matrilinealism, "covada", the distribution in clans, pagan remnants, etc. If you are interested in it, I can quote some authors (I guess you can speak or read Spanish).--Xareu bs 09:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that Pelayo (Pelagius) has a disputed origin and even questions about his historicity are sometimes raised. His name is of Latin orgin, but some Visigoths had Latin names. See Fructuosus of Braga, who was probably of Gothic origin. Also the duke of Cantabria, Pedro, though he has a Latin name was probably Visigothic, why else is his son named Alfonso (Hildefuns)? Similarly, what about Favila, is that a Latin name? No, it is Gothic. The quote of Elipandus only shows that the prelate regarded Toledo as the centre of the primacy and a metropolitan see, not usually occupied by Visigoths, in fact. The Reconquista began long before the Martyrs of Córdoba and I don't believe that by that time the Gothic-Roman distinction existed.

The ducal, Cantabrian dynasty took the throne as legitimate heirs after Pelayo's dynasty dies out in 739. Alfonso I (cited above) is a definite historical personage, a king of Asturias, and definitely of Gothic origins. With him, the Reconquista begins through the creation of a Desert of the Duero. I don't believe Alfonso would have needed a justification to claim any lands except those of Navarre (Pamplona). All other lands were either his or the Moslems'. The Asturians need not mean those of an ancient Celtiberian tribe or whatnot, it merely refers to the inhabitants—Gothic and Roman alike—of the Asturias, as opposed to the inhabitant of the rest of the old realm, who were now under the Moors. If you can quote any source which considers Pelayo to have been of non-Gothic origin and elected, not by other Goths, but solely by the heads of ancient clans, please do. Srnec 17:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"La Monarquía Asturiana. Nacimiento y expansión de un reino", Javier Rodríguez Muñoz, Oviedo, Editorial Prensa Asturiana, 2004, Javier Arce "El último siglo de la España romana (284-409), Madrid, 1986, from same author, "Ástures. Pueblos y culturas en la frontera del Imperio Romano", Gijón, 1975. "Consideraciones sobre la situación política de los pueblos del norte de España durante la época visigoda del reino de Toledo", Armando Besga Marroquín, Bilbao, 1983."La tierra de los ástures. Nuevas perspectivas sobre la implantación romana en la antigua Asturia", Carmen Fernández Ochoa, Gijón, 1999. MªCruz González Rodríguez "Los ástures y los cántabros vadinienses", Vitoria, 1997, "Sobre los orígenes sociales de la Reconquista", Abilion Barbero y Marcelo Vigil, Barcelona, 1975. Lucien Barrau Dihigo "Etudes sur les actes des rois asturiennes (718-910)", en Revue Hispanique, XLVI, 1919 (and to a certain extent, Sánchez Albornoz claims this in his works).

Note-Ástures were not Celtiberians at all. They were indoeuropeans, likely of preceltic origin.--Xareu bs 13:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Especially your first reference. While I will concede that the nature of the kingdom of Asturias has disputable ethnic origins, I think the existence Alfonso I is very strong evidence for a Visigothic character. I also think it has little bearing on the overall trend of my arguments on the heritage of modern Spain above. Finally, the Celtiberians were all that was left of the protocelts when the Romans arrived and when the Romans left, only Hispano-Romans remained. By the tenth century, disinctions between Goth and Hispano-Roman had disappeared. Ethnic distinctions do not survive migration and conquest very long and Spain is no exception. Next to no Celtiberians existed at the time of the Visigothic conquest, much less the Moorish. Srnec 03:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] questions

Wow! All this discussion about history! But what about the modern area? Is there anything distinctively Celtic or Gaullic about the current culture? What about Celtic languages? Are any still spoken there? What were the names of the historical languages? Do the people who live there look any different from people in other parts of Spain -- fairer perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.150.121 (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)