Talk:List of Navarrese monarchs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
France Portal
List of Navarrese monarchs is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.


Basque Portal

This article is within the scope of the Basque WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Basque people, Basque Country, Basque language, history and culture. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] Kings

Does the fact that there were reigning queens force us to this awkward title? What's wrong with "List of Kings of Navarre"? john 06:40, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Srnec (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering early kings

I have removed the numbering of the early kings because the numbers are typically not used, and when they are, there are too many different systems, such that any one choice of numbers is arbitrary and uninformative.

Just as the Anglo-Saxon kings of England were usually not numbered, but rather identified by nickname (with one notable exception), so the early kings of Navarre, and the counts of Aragon and Castile have a tradition among historians of being referred to by their name and patronymic or name and nickname (e.g. Sancho Abarca, Garcia el de Najera). While the nicknames are foreign enough to English-language historians that they have tended not to follow, then have generally used name/patronymic naming with the exception of the name Sancho, for which they do tend to be numbered sequentially.

Further, there are problems with all of the numbering in deciding who should and should not be numbered, and while a consistent pattern could be applied, no such consistency exists in the scholarly literature.

Inigo. Inigo Arista is called either Inigo I or Inigo II (because his father, named Inigo, is presumed to be 'king' before he was (a presumption without support, but he has been numbered by some none the less). In the majority of cases, though, he is Inigo Arista, without number. This is appropriate, as the supposed second king Inigo can not be shown to have ruled anything. He was, at most, sub-regulus of the pocket-kingdom his father held, but even the royal status of this holding is questionable, as it only appears as such in a document from two centuries later that appears to have been based on material written in Arabic, so there is no telling what the original title may have been. Even in this source, he is not called king in his own entry, but only in an entry relating to his wife's family, and given that there is significant evidence of the title 'king' being used as a courtesy title (see, for example, 'king' Jimeno Garces, younger brother of Ramiro Garces of Viguera, or Ramiro's younger son Garcia, who appears as 'king' prior to his brother's death), we cannot be sure what his status was. There is every reason to believe that Inigo Arista was the only king of Pamplona of this name, and hence should be unnumbered. The second Inigo, if he is to be referenced at all, is usually called simply Inigo Garces (or Inigo, half-brother of Sancho I). Arista is not given a patronymic because, due to a popularly cited but forged charter, there are two different patronymics found for him, but his nickname is distinctive enough.

Jimeno. There is only record of one Jimeno ever ruling, the brother of Sancho Garces (and the literature is even confused with regard to his status). The 'first' Jimeno is only found in one historical record, that naming his son Garcia Jimenez (and hence his father must have been named Jimeno). There is also a Mitio, one of two Dukes of the Navarrese, who sent envoys to the Franks, but it was wishful thinking to suggest this was Jimeno. Were it not for all of the nonsense that has been written about him that hence needs refuting, he wouldn't even merit a page, and it is biasing the argument to give him a number. The second Jimeno is usually refered to as "Jimeno, brother of Sancho I" or "Jimeno Garces". The latter does just fine at identifying him, without a number, as he was the only king of Pamplona named Jimeno Garces, and the only one named Jimeno for that matter.

Garcia. here the real problem arises. This is due to confused pedigrees and confused numbering, exacerbated when those unfamiliar with the historical underpinnings tried to apply numbers. Garcia Iniguez could be numbered Garcia I, but as this number has been used for at least one other king, that would not be as unambiguous as just calling him Garcia Iniguez, as most historians do. Garcia Jimenez never ruled the Kingdom of Navarre, and the numbering of him is a relatively modern innovation that, to a degree, has upset the apple cart. The main reason for this is that prior to the rediscovery of the Codice de Roda, Sancho Garces was thought to have been son of Garcia Iniguez. As to whether what Garcia Jimenez ruled was actually a kingdom at all, see above. The first Garcia Sanchez has been numbered I, II, or III, and similarly his two successors are multi-numbered. I even see Garcia el de Najera called Garcia VI in 19th century sources, and I challenge anyone to come up with 5 earlier Garcias without counting an earlier Garcia who was leader of the Basques in the late 8th century, whose inclusion would simply exacerbate the problem of numbering the later ones.

Next you get to Garcia Ramirez. The stats here may prove informative. He is numbered Garcia IV, V, VI, and VII. If you do a Google Books search for the combination '"Garcia IV Ramirez" Navarre' you get hits in the mid 20s. For Garcia V R, a handful, for G VI R, 6, and for G VII R you get 2. If you put the number after the patronymic, you get for IV in the 30s, and for V, VI, and VII less than a handful. If you search for the name and patronymic without numbers, you get more than 200. (Unfortunately, it is not practical to include Garcia # without the patronymic: for each search you get about 100, but these are a mix of three or more different Garcias - just search for 'Navarre "Garcia VI" -"Garcia VI Ramirez"' and most of the first page refer to 'el de Najera', not Ramirez. I did scan through all searches and most hits are relevant, and in English, not Spanish.) Thus, not only is there no agreement over what number should be used, but the number previously used here is not the most popular one (IV is), and more popular than any numbered choice is the use of no number at all.

By using name/patronymic, and only numbering those with common combinations (e.g. Garcia Sanchez III) you have a system that is both unambiguous, and which is more common among scholars than the arbitrary numbering which had been used here, which was only one of several much less popular solutions. Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with all this. I never knew any of these details, just that there were alternative systems. Couldn't some of these informative details that confuse historians and laymen alike be added to articles so that the reader can understand why, when searching for "Garcia IV", they could only find Gacia Ramirez? That's all I'd ask for. Put it in the first paragraph, in the second, its own section, a footnote, whatever. I don't care, as long as somewhere (in the kings' articles, in the regnal list, or at the disambig pages) it is accessible to the (probably by now) confused reader! I'd love to do it, but though I am very interested in this history and always have been, the sources avaible through my university are paltry for this subject. Srnec (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Alleged" Jiménez kings

Since this is not solid and most list do not include them, then they should not be in the article. Especially since they need qualifiers like "claimed to have formed" ... and "the chronology of their reigns (if any)". - Gennarous (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jiménez dynasty The Jiménez dynasty are claimed to have formed a line of co-regents with the Íñiguez for much of the ninth century. Eventually, the Jiménez dynasts supplanted the Íñiguez and took over the kingship, the subsequent monarchs being listed below. The chronology of their reigns (if any) is unknown.

That information is good. Did you read the individual kings' articles before removing it? Now, before you go nuts on me for reverting you completely, know this: I don't think the monarch table is necessary and it just complicates matters, but I will not revert you again if you insert the whole list tabulated all at once instead of piecemeal and if you don't remove good information in the meanwhile b/c it doesn't fit in a table easily. Why not create a complete table in a user subspace, like User:Gennarous/Kings of Navarre, and then get community approval first? Please consider it. Thankyou. Srnec (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Before I go nuts at you? I'm not expected to already when everytime I edit something on most articles, you come to step in and revert within minutes? The problem is not whether or not they will "fit", for example if you look at List of monarchs of the Two Sicilies, there are two claimaints at the same timeframe and they both fit into tables, but whether or not they are valid. You have to admit it is strange to have such huge qualifiers on such an article. The information is still on this talkpage if they are actually relevent to go back in with the certified kings of Navarre. - Gennarous (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This article was on my watchpage and as you can see, I have been involved in it for years. That information has qualifiers because the entire early history of Navarre has qualifiers. It's not strange, its just early medieval history. The sources for the information can be found at the individual kings' articles and at Roda Codex. I wish you would take my advice about tabular format seriously. Srnec (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I will weigh in here. I am not fond of the table format, although I don't feel strongly enough about it to revert it.
As to the Early Jimenez, I was never comfortable with their inclusion. Jimeno is just the name of the father of Garcia Jimenez, and the attempt to link the Mitio who sent envoys with him seems to be wishful thinking, intended to find a place for him in the royal structure, rather than a strong linguistic link between Mitio and Jimeno. Garcia was clearly ruling in "another part of the kingdom", suggesting either subregulus status or a completely separate political entity, neither of which would qualify him for inclusion in this list. For Inigo, I don't know any historian that actually places him among the kings - they all seem to be searching for some place to put him (as regent for Fortun, as regent for the young Garcia Sanchez I, etc.). There are problems though with the title itself - it only appears in the Roda document, which has been suggested to derive from an Arabic source, so it is hard to say what title the original compiler had in mind (a problem that also, by the way, applies to the title of Inigo Arista, who is only known from Arabic, Arabic-derived, or late forged Christian documents, but that is a different kettle of fish). Second, the royal title seems to have been used as a courtesy, akin to infante, at the time the document is thought to have been compiled. Jimeno, younger brother of Garcia Sanchez I, is called 'king' in at least one contemporary charter while he appears never to have ruled anything.
That being said, if it is to be a table, then the nonsense needs to be removed. Agricolae (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm opposed to the table. As to the early Jiménez kings, I have no idea. I have access to next to no sources for this stuff from where I am. But if we dismiss it all as nonsense in order to preserve a table, are we presenting a "tidied up" version of current scholarship and disregarding alternative hypotheses about obscure history out of hand? Is the linear tabular list too clear-cut is what I'm asking given the primary and secondary literature. If you don't think so, then I bow to your superior knowledge of these matters. Srnec (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Two separate issues. First: Table or List. As I said, I prefer the list. As to the early Jimenez, this is a separate issue, and any table or list is, to a degree, a simplification that will exclude minority (or even inconvenient) positions. For example it is easier to call Ramiro I a King of Aragon in such a list than to try to explain that he was autonomous and everyone else seems to have thought of him as such, but he never seems to have used the title himself - that kind of detail can be found on the individual pages. As to the specific issue, the published lists of kings I can recall seeing in chronological handbooks and such are much more likely to exclude the early Jimenez, and while two prominent scholars collaborated on a 'Two Kingdoms' hypothesis, this has not been followed, in general, most showing Garcia as Regent, and suggesting Jimeno might have been regent (which flies in the fact of the best records, which show Garcia Iniguez as regent for his father). Some even make Garcia the acting-king of the main kingdom, but as best I can tell no recent scholars support this interpretation. As to Inigo Garces, I know of no scholar who thinks he was really king - they just struggle to harmonize his clear non-ruling status with the Roda use of 'king'. I should say, though, that I have not done a complete survey of sources, more just catch as catch can, and this spotty acquisition of new material can sometimes completely reconfigure the apparent consensus, as a new set of writings become available to me. Agricolae (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)