Talk:Kingdom of Galicia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

• We looks different in our language and some traditions, like english people could be different from people from Scotland. But we speak Spanish too, and much people even don't speak Galician (in cities, and young people normally). After the victory of Spanish in our "social war", some people started to think and still think Galician is language of silly people. Gallaecio (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Reino da Galiza

In Galician, the official and most common name is Reino de Galicia. In the medieval galician, Galicia and Galiza, both were used. And "Reino da Galiza" I thick is how it's said now in Portuguese (althought some reintegrationist groups use it). Gallaecio (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• In the Galician article the name is Reino de Galicia or Reino de Galiza, but doesn't use the article, so Reino da Galiza isn't in Galician.213.60.157.104 (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Arms and the Flag of the Kingdom of Asturias

Unofficial flag of Asturias (see text)

Unofficial arms of Asturias (see text)

This flag and this coat of arms never were asturian symbols, see:

(in Spanish) Jovellanos y el escudo de Asturias (con un breve apunte astorgano); Autor: Juan José Sánchez Badiola (The Arms of Asturias by Juan Jose Sanchez Badiola).

Escutcheon erroneously attributed to Asturias, 15th-18th centuries

It was the Coat of Arms wrongly attributed to the Prince and the Principality of Asturias (Spain) in 15th through 18th centuries, as proved Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos, author, philosopher and main figure of the Age of Enlightenment in Spain. This Coat of Arms appeared in printed books and maps, even It was included in the Encyclopédie of Denis Diderot.

In a report about a ensign for the Regiment of Asturian Noblemen Jovellanos said the symbol of Asturias is the Victory Cross and it should be incorporated in these ensign.

Current and proper arms of Asturias

This is the present law regarding the Asturian arms (text added by starfarmer*comm 04:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)):

Artículo 1.—El Principado de Asturias tiene Escudo propio. La presente Ley lo describe regula su uso.

Artículo 2.—El Escudo del Principado de Asturias es rectangular, cuadrilongo y con los extremos del lado inferior redondeados y una punta o ángulo saliente en el centro de dicho lado, con la proporción de seis de alto por cinco de ancho.
Trae sobre campo de azur o azul la Cruz de Asturias, que llama de la Victoria, de oro, guarnecida de piedras preciosas de su natural color, y las letras Alpha mayúscula y Omega minúscula, también de oro, pendientes de sus brazos diestro y siniestro, respectivamente; y en sendas líneas, con letras de oro, la leyenda

HOC SIGNO TVETUR PIUS
HOC SIGNO VINCITUR INIMICUS

la primera al flanco diestro la segunda al flanco siniestro.

Al timbre, corona real, cerrada, que es un circulo de oro, engastado de piedras preciosas, compuesto de ocho florones de hojas de acanto, visibles cinco, interpoladas de perlas, y de cuyas hojas salen sendas diademas sumadas de perlas, que convergen en un mundo de azur o azul, con el semimeridiano y el ecuador de oro, sumado de cruz de oro. La corona, forrada de gules o rojo.

The present Asturian Arms regulation said: “...the arms of asturias consisted of a field of azure with the Victory Cross of Or… as said Jovellanos and the heraldist Ciriaco de Miguel Vigil”. So Asturias never had a gules coat of arms and a red or Crimson flag.

The first regulation for the Asturian Coat of Arms was an Act of the Provincial Diputation of Oviedo of 21th October 1857.

The asturian and the early leonese monarchs used the Victory Cross as symbol in a pre-heraldic period, but it wasn’t in a coat of arms, flag or standard. King Ramiro I of Asturias (c.790–850) used a white flag with a red cross in the pre-heraldic period.

--Proof02 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A complete collection of anti-historical B.S.

It appears this article has just been vandalised by some nationalist galician twat with, like all galician nationalists, less brains than a walnut. You just start reading it and it's like some alternate universe history. The maps are quite funny though. That map regarding Navarre and the "Kingdom of Galicia", under Vermudo of Galicia (Vermudo III of Leon in reality) encompassing what was the Kingdom of Leon, is just priceless. Retarded, but funny. The Asturian kingdom is absent, maybe Pelayo was a galician and those who fought in Covadonga were all galicians and members of the BNG. Same thing about the Kingdom of Leon.

I prefer the basque and catalan articles about their "glorious past" and history. They tend to have a little bit more respect for historical facts although still twisting it to accomodate their political dogmas. This article is just a lot of anti-historical rubbish, it's so blatantly fake that is laughable. Goebbels would love it, though, as distorting history to levels of ridicule propaganda was one of the Nazi's favourite activities.

I therefore call to Wikipedia to ban the author of this "article" and remove the "article" immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sky1green (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with last comment. This article now it´s full of blatant lies and historical nonsense. It isn´t worth being in the Wikipedia. --Xareu bs (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Dearest Sky1green & Xareu bs:

The colonized and the colonizer will always have different points of view, and since there never has been and never will be "one correct history", it is foolish to expect to find it here.

Discussion, in particular discussion and citation of sources is the way we solve things here. Foot-stomping and name-calling weakens your cause, but you can trump your own bad manners and lack of style by providing valid, verifiable historical references that make your point for you. Give it a try...it's hard work, but gratifying. And very, very hard to argue with (except by using other valid, verifiable sources, that is!) ::--starfarmer*comm 04:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"himself born in the former Roman province Gallaecia"

This needs to be clarified. Who is the "him" here? In what way was he born in Gallaecia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Last reverts

In order to avoid a war of editions, herewith I state why I´ve reverted the article to a neutral revision:there was never a Kingdom of Galicia stated as such in the contemporary Christian Chronicles which describe the first two centuries of the Kingdom of Asturias and Leon.In fact, the later Kingdom of Galicia only served a nominal role in the later centuries, along with the rest of Kingdoms of the Crown of Castile. The reference to these Christian Chronicles are in the article of the Kingdom of Asturias (by the way, called Asturorum Regnum). The interpretation by Nuno is a biased version full of blatant inaccuracies, from an also biased article in the Galician wiki (then translated by the same people to French). This discussion had already taken place in the Spanish and English versions, getting to a neutral version prior to this revisionist version by Galician nationalists searching for a state that never existed but in their minds.--Xareu bs (talk)

10:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuninho, the History in the Article of the Kingdom of Galicia doesn´t make any sense. I know it´s been a great amount of work translating from the Galician wiki, but it´s Very biased. First of all, Kingdom of Asturias is not another name for the Kingdom of Galicia. It´s a thoroughly different thing. It´s impossible for the Galician Kingdom (supposing that the Suebic Kigdom was a sort of Kingdom of Galicia, which is going too far) to have survived after the Moors arrived, because the NW of Spain fell (for only a few years) under Muslim Control. After that, and in the EAST corner of Asturias, a merger of Astures, Cantabri and later on Visigoths created a new state, which, and according to the Chronicles, fought the rebellious Galician several times (in times of Fruela and Bermudo,for example). So, we have three facts: the cradle of the Kingdom was a zone who hadn´t belonged to the Suebic Kingdom. The Kingdom called itself Asturorum Regnum. Several kings fought the rebels from the region of Galicia, and then appointed Comtes to control this zone (it´s was also how the County of Portugal was created). Where is the Kingdom of Galicia to be found in this scheme?. And, to end up, the chronicles state the date of Conquering of Lugo, Tuy, Braga, and so on. Conquering.Do you get it?. The sources are first hand Chronicles of that period, being the main source of reference also in the English speaking Historical Studies, and not articles written by nationalist biased teachers in Galicia. Please read the article for the Kingdom of Asturias in Spanish or English. The Chronicles are also in the web.Best regards.--Xareu bs (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Xareu, I answered you in your own discussion section, I´m not going to fight in this war of editions, I just ask you meditation. However sincerely I think your political comments about "Galician nationalists" or your personal comments, they highlight that your contributions in this article aren´t partials.

I have seen that Kingdom of Asturias article is a full translating from Spanish article, realized by the same people, and precisely you and user:Fmercury1980 are the main authors in this translating to English language, but not only in it, you are the main authors in the Spanish version of article:Kingdom of Asturias. I don´t believe in coincidences.

I´m going to restore nothing in this article, but I believe sincerely you aren´t really interested in improving this article, just in destroying it. I don´t want to continue to discuss about it.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I know very little indeed about this subject, but browsing the index to Adeline Rucquoi's Histoire médiévale de la Péninsule ibérique, the only book on Medieval Iberia I own, I can find "Garcia (roi de Galice)". Fair enough. But "Galice (royaume de)" is not there, although "Aragon (royaume d')", "Castille (royaume de)" and "Léon (royaume de)" certainly are. If the "Kingdom of Galicia" was no more than Garcia's share of Fernando the Great's kingdom, can't it be best dealt with in his article (which is sad and in need of tender loving care from an expert anyway)? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sory Nuninho, I don´t want an edition war either. Those articles I´m citing have sources (primary sources, I may say), from Historical accounts. Nothwithstanding that, I would like someone neutral to review this article if necessary with another point of view, but Sourced.What we cannot use are essays from teachers (some of them belonging to certain Parties)that are not basing their work in scientific texts. Or maybe we can state "there are some interpretation where the Kingdom of Galicia...". But, honestly, I´ve tried to clarify my point going to the facts with the little documentation remaining from this period (see last post). Maybe we can discuss on that.--Xareu bs (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

10th century POV (and whole page)

The suggestion that Alfonso Fruelaz, Sancho Ordonez, and Vermudo II unambiguously were kings of an independent kingdom of Galicia is hard to support from an unbiased evaluation of the scholarly work. The former two are named in a kings' list that portrays them as rulers of the single Asturias/Leon/Galicia entity, but as this conflicts with other accounts, an attempt has been made to try to harmonize the conflict by making them kings of a part of a newly fractionated kingdom for which there is no direct support. As to Vermudo, he is usually portrayed as a competitor raised by the Galicians who proceeded over the next two years to take the crown. Does this make him king of Galicia, or just a Galician-backed pretender, eventually successful? I can cite sources that argue against the interpretation shown here, in both cases. On a more general level, this page seems to be joining several distinct entities of the same name. The Suevi kingdom, only shares name and geography, but no political identity with the latter ones. The 10th century entity was politically transient, and again bears no political continuity with those before or after. That of Garcia is again distinct and short-lived. The suggestion given in the infobox that there was a single kingdom from 910 to 1833 ignores the discontinuities and the fundamental difference between a stand-alone political entity and an administrative unit within the Crown of Leon. I have to think the only single page that should contain the Suevi kingdom, the transient 10th and 11th century entities, and the later administrative unit is a disambiguation page. Agricolae (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If you´re up to it, please cite sources.--Xareu bs (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I OBJECT

Well. I'm Galician, and Galician is the language I speak at home and at works; I'm a catholic, but I haven't confessed myself or participated in the Communion since the last millennium; I give money every month to UNHCR / ACNUR; I buy fair-trade coffee; soccer bores me; I love music -well, some music-; I have a pair of blogs; I prefer Coke... no, I prefer beer; I liked NY from the distance, but I really love NY since I was there last summer; I am not an active editor of the Wikipedia -well, in fact now I am :-) -, and when I vote I use to vote for a party that happens to aspire to the independence of Galicia, but that usually it is satisfied as long as our autonomy and culture is respected. And I still don't find I'm a bad person, so excuse me if I think I'm more objective than I really am.

Land and Country

The Kingdom of Galicia was a country, with its territory, its population and its institutions. The first of this institutions can be the king, but it is by not means the only one. An so an article about the kingdom of Galicia should deal al least with a) the land, territory and the people, b) the institutions and c) with their evolution and history. The article as it is now is little more than a list of kings, while a kingdom -any kingdom- is more than that.

Emptiness

The article as it it now is no 'neutral'. First, it is simply void. In fact, I can see no neutrality in substituting one article of 80.000+ bytes with tens of notes and still a work in progress, with another one less than 30.000 bytes long with just two notes. By the way, this substitution have been made with a very disrespectful commentary: “removing fake information”, which under any circumstance can be provocative. And I'm not implying that the original article was just fine for me or anyone else; on the contrary, I don't agree with certain -even many- asserts; but as long as the facts I don't agree with are well documented, I consider that any mayor change should be preceded/accompanied by a debate, or be included as a side by side interpretation/fact/theory. But we haven't assisted, here and now, to a dialectic process for the improvement of the article -which means hard work and maybe laborious debate. Second, as it is now it even uses false testimonies. Never Braulio of Saragossa (VIIth century) depicted Galicia as "the extremity of the west in an illiterate country where nought is heard but the sound of gales”; although it is true that Fructuoso of Braga wrote in the letter he addressed to Braulio:“Hic solus nuntius arentia mentis nostrae saepe viscera pascit & vestrorum felicitate gestorum inter raucisona spumantis sali freta, atque occeani gurgites, & aequora inquieta humilitatis nostrae mulcet auditus, quod Caesaraugustam vestram vestra jugis augusta doctrina nobilitat (..) nos longe positos, & occidentis tenebrosa plaga depressos non despiciatis.” [here alone, messenger of my thirsty mind (…) surrounded by the roaring salty foamy bays and the currents of the Ocean (…) I that live far off, down by the dark wound of the West, don't you forget me]. Fructuoso, a founder of monasteries in isolated places, simply creates a contrast: his lonely retirement by the Ocean in Galicia, in one side, and in the other the blissful Saragossa, which counts with the presence of Braulio. Braulio, in his answer wrote: ”Provincia namque, quam incolitis, & Graecam sibi originem defendit, quae magistra est litterarum & ingeniis & ex ea ortos fuisse recordamini elegantissimos & doctissimos viros (ut aliquo dicam) Orosium prebyterum, Turibium Episcopum, Idatium & Carterium laudatae senectutis & sanctae eruditionis Pontificem” [Now, the Province you inhabit, and she defends its Greek origin, is a master in letters and talents, and from her are born -I remember- the most elegant and knowing men, to mention some, Orosius presbyter, bishop Turibius, Idatius and Carterius...]. The letters can be found in España Sagrada, vol. XXX, p. 383-396 (in Google Books).

Construction / Destruction

A constructive debate should never include epithets like: “(they) have … less brains than a walnut”: that assertion is always false and could be interpreted as an insult and a -silly- provocation. “Retarded, but funny. ”: It really depicts the human quality of the person who writes it and don't come back in a hurry saying I'm so sorry, I'm so ashamed. Again, what's next don't promote consensus, and uses too many adjectives to be good prose: “some alternate universe history.”, “a little bit more respect for historical facts although still twisting it to accomodate their political dogmas. This article is just a lot of anti-historical rubbish, it's so blatantly fake that is laughable. Goebbels would love it, though, as distorting history to levels of ridicule propaganda was one of the Nazi's favourite activities.” Finally, this same editor with ad-hoc account said: “I therefore call to Wikipedia to ban the author of this "article" and remove the "article" immediately”. No, I can't agree with that comments, nor I can agree with using them against other people who manifest a different opinion. Who's playing Goebbels here?

Gallaecia / Galicia / Ŷillīqiya

“That map regarding Navarre and the "Kingdom of Galicia", under Vermudo of Galicia (Vermudo III of Leon in reality) encompassing what was the Kingdom of Leon, is just priceless. Retarded, but funny.” [Sky1green (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)]

Incidentally, yes, the king whom is usually known as Vermudo III of Leon, he who dies in the Battle of Tamaron in 1037, he who was ordered king in Santiago de Compostela in 1028 having as patrinus the bishop Wistrarius, he who lost most of his kingdom to the king Sancho of Castille, -the last one styled himself regnante Sanctio in Legione et Castella from 1030-, he who had to seek refugee beyond the mountains, in modern Galicia, well, he was described as the son of Aldefonsi Gallicensium Principis in the leonese Chronica Silensis, of the twelfth century: Siquidem Santius Cantabriensium post mortem Aldefonsi Galleciensium Principis, Veremundo teneris annis impedito, partem regni sui, videlicet a flumine Pisorga ad usque Ceyam suo domino mancipaverat. Porro Veremundus asulta jam aerare, ubi Sancius Rex spiravit, paternum Regnum vindicare disposuit. (CHRONICA SILENSIS)

Pamplona was regarded as a city in Galicia not only by the Arabs of souther Spain -for the Arabs of souther Spain all the NW of the Iberian Peninsula was known as Ŷillīqiya < Gallaecia, whose inhabitants, the Galicians, were a subgroup of the Franks. Also the French adressed the Northwest of Hispania as Galicia: anno 778 rex Caroulus cum magno exercitu venit in terram Galliciam et adquisivit Pampalonam. (ANNALES PETAVIANI) It's is not that I consider that the Asturians of Asturias or that the Basques and Romans of Pamplona felt Galicians, but they were seen as that by their contemporaries. So, the map can be criticized, of course, but the person who made it has good reasons:

• Roman Gallaecia comprised most of Hispania north of the Duero river: Hidatius (Theodosius natione Hispanus, de provincia Gallaecia, civitate Cauca, a Gratiano augustus appellatur; In Asturicensi urbe Gallaeciae; Theudoricus adversis sibi nuntiis territus, mox post dies paschae, quod fuit quinto kal. Aprilis, de Emerita egreditur, et Gallias repetens partem ex ea quam habebat multitudine variae nationis, cum ducibus suis ad campos Gallaeciae dirigit: qui dolis et perjuriis instructi, sicut eis fuerat imperatum, Asturicam quam jam praedones ipsius sub specie Romanae ordinationis intraverant); Orosius (Numantia autem citerioris Hispaniae, haud procul a Vaccaeis et Cantabris in capite Gallaeciae sita, ultima Celtiberorum fuit.; Cantabri et Astures Gallaeciae prouinciae portio sunt); Isidorus (Item regiones partes sunt provinciarum, quas vulgus conventus vocat, sicut in Phrygia Troia; sicut in Gallicia Cantabria, Asturia. Etymologiarum, XIV, V, 21); Notitia Dignitatum (In provincia Callaecia: Praefectus legionis septimae geminae, Legione.Tribunus cohortis secundae Flaviae Pacatianae, Paetaonio. Tribunus cohortis secundae Gallicae, ad cohortem Gallicam. Tribunus cohortis Lucensis, Luco.Tribunus cohortis Celtiberae, Brigantiae, nunc Iuliobriga.In provincia Tarraconensi: Tribunus cohortis primae Gallicae, Veleia')
• But the Suevi changed it to comprise also the north of Lusitania -as stated by the Councils of Braga-, although they lost all lands east of the Cea river. During the High Middle Ages, Galicia extended south to the Mondego river, north passed the Eo, and east to the Cea river: sub aula idem gloriosis martyribus in ciuitate que uoc[i]tatur Legio, territorio Gallicie (Leon, year 874); in hunc locum Calzata, que est sita super ripam fluminis cui nomen est Zeia, in finibus Galleciae (Leon, 905); In loco Calzata que est sita super ripam fluminis cui nomem est Ceia in finibus Gallecie (Sahagun 922); Collegio fratrum Sanctorum Facundi & Primitibi in finibus Gallecie super ripam amnes Ceia (Sahagún 1060); sub amne Zeja, vocabulo sanctorum Facundi & Primitivi, in finubus Gallecie (Sahagún 1068); In deo dei filio sempiternum salutem. Dono atque offero propter remedium anime mee et altario sacro sancti mameti que situm est cenobio subtus monte lauribano in finibus gallecie (Lorvao, 933); Expulsa itaque de Portugale Maurorum rabie; omnes ultra fluvium Mondego, qui utramque a Gallecia separat provinciam, Fernandus Rex ire cogit. (Chronica Silense, XIIth century); Abjicimus etiam in Gallecía Ecclesias & Dioecese, quos avíos nostros in prima populationé ad ipsa Sede Legionense dederunt , ita & nos confirmamus ; id sunt : Vallacarcere, Vallebona, Triacastella, Zerbantes, Nabia cum Deganeis suis , Vitrico , Arborsola , Soorna, Trabersas de Fraxino , Ibias ambas , Ausecos & Neiro. (in Espanha Sagrada vol. XXXIX)

Hadefonsi regis Galleciae et Asturiae

there was never a Kingdom of Galicia stated as such in the contemporary Christian Chronicles which describe the first two centuries of the Kingdom of Asturias and Leon. Correct. The three Asturian chronicles,  written during the last years of the IX century -by the way, their credibility is disputed and frequently they contradict one to another-, refer to the Kingdom just once and once alone as “Asturorum regnum” (Albeldense) when they deal with the first king of Asturias, the legendary Pelagius. The same chronicle -and the Asturian documents, but not the Galician ones- prefer the term “Regnum Ovetensium” [Kingdom of Oviedo] for the name of its former capital. In in reference to the kingdom of Ordonio it simply indicates “Iste Xpianorum regnum cum Dei iubamine ampliauit. Legionem atque Asturicam simul cum Tude et Amagia populauit”. So, when the kingdom which born in Asturias as Kingdom of the Asturians expanded into Galicia, Castille and the 'Outer Land', it become The Kingdom of the Cristians (Asturians, Galicians from each side of the Minho and Douro, Castilians, Basques...) which the Arabs, Frenchmen, and even many locals addressed as  Ŷillīqiya / Galicia. Maybe the Asturians founders pretended an Asturian headed empire, but the constant uprisings in Galicia and Alava, forced them to forge alliances with the locals counts and bishop, as shown by the VIIIth and Ixth centuries documentation of the Galician monastery of Sobrado, where the the person that makes them valid and firm is the bishop of Iria, not the king; it is interesting also the phrase used by the XIIth century Chronicle of Silos, in reference to the Regnum of Froila I (mid. VIIIth century):fedifragum Galleciae populum [the league-breaking people of Galicia]. As for the other Chronicles, Rotense & Ad Sebastian, they just use the word REGNUM, with no adjective appended. Also, the “Testament” of Alfonso II, the only other document that uses the expressions “kingdom of the Astures and the Christians”, although dated in 812, is a XIth century copy, in opinion of Barrau-Dihigo; and as such, it can not be demonstrated that its redaction don't depends on the Chronica Albeldense. So, affirming ”The Kingdom called itself Asturorum Regnum” is probably excessive.

I just want to remember how French documents adressed Afonso II “DCCXCVIII. Venit etiam et legatus Hadefonsi regis Galleciae et Asturiae, nomine Froia, papilionem mirae pulchritudinis praesentans. (…) Hadefonsus rex Galleciae et Asturiae praedata Olisipona ultima Hispaniae civitate insignia victoriae suae loricas, mulos captivosque Mauros domno regi per legatos suos Froiam et Basiliscum hiemis tempore misit.” (ANNALES REGNI FRANCORUM); “Hadefuns rex Gallaeciae Carolo prius munera pretiosa itemque manubias suas pro munere misit.” (CODEX AUGIENSIS); Galleciarum princeps (VITA LUDOVICI)

Juntas del Reyno de Galicia

In fact, the later Kingdom of Galicia only served a nominal role in the later centuries, along with the rest of Kingdoms of the Crown of Castile. 

If we are speaking of the XIVth-XIXth century I agree, but the actuation of the Juntas of the Kingdom of Galicia from the XVI century are not merely “nominal”. Next is just a resume of a very large memorandum that the Kingdom send to the King, remembering the extremely large contribution of the Kingdom to the wars sustained by the king in Portugal, Flanders and Catalonia, and with the French and English Navy. In particular, after the 28 year of the war of Independence of Portugal, Galicia had lost 200.000 inhabitants, passing from 125.000 families in 1640 to less than 80.000 after the war:

Señor = El marques de Villagarcia Regidor de la ciudad de Santiago y D. Joseph Pardo de Figueroa Fical del Consejo Regidor de la ciudad de Betanzos ambos Procuradores en las presentes Cortes por el Reyno de Galicia postrados a los Reales pies de V. Majestad dizen: Que el dicho Reyno (...) en particular ha hecho los servicios siguientes: El año 1624 sirvio a V.M. Con 100.000 ducados por la merced que se le hizo del Voto en Cortes. El año 1628 sirvio con 2 navios que se juntaron con seis que se fabricaron con los 100.000 ducados del dicho servicio. En el año 1629 (…) sirvió con 800.000 ducados (...) En 1630 sirvio con 3.000 infantes que se llevaron a los Estados de Flandes. El de 1632 los Titulos del Reyno, entre sus vasallos, hicieron leva de otros 3.000 infantes para los mismos Estados. En el año de 1635 sirvio con 450 infantes para la Escuadra del Reyno (...) En año de 1636 sirvio con 2.000 ducados para fortificaciones y con 20.000 ducados para fabrica de Galeones (...) El de 1639 (…) y con quinientos infantes vestidos y armados para el ejército de Cantabria a donde se condujeron a su costa cuyo gasto y el de los vestidos importan mas de veinte mil ducados (...) el marques de Valparaiso embarcó para Flandes (…) 1638 labradores de las milicias que avian ido a la Coruña para guardar aquella plaza (…) El de 41 el Marques de Valparaiso formo ocho tercios de soldados labradores de milicias con sus cabos y oficiales y estos sirvieron hasta el año de quarenta y quatro en la parte de Tuy (…) Etc, etc, etc... (letter of the representatives of the Kingdom of Galicia to the King, year 1659)

The Juntas were composed of representatives of the seven provinces of the Kingdom of Galicia, and were regularly held from 1585 to 1833. Although the Governor, as representative of the King in the Kingdom, got almost absolute power, any mayor decision was consulted with the Juntas; and the Juntas could also raise an armada, recruit tercios for the wars, or collect funds. And the Juntas acted also as parliament and advisory council of the Kingdom, and in critical moments, even as an autonomous government. I'm serious when I say that I don't know what autonomous institutions, existed at that time in the other countries and kingdoms of Castile.

Arabs and names

Kingdom of Asturias is not another name for the Kingdom of Galicia. It´s a thoroughly different thing. It´s impossible for the Galician Kingdom (supposing that the Suebic Kigdom was a sort of Kingdom of Galicia, which is going too far) to have survived after the Moors arrived, because the NW of Spain fell (for only a few years) under Muslim Control.

No, its not impossible at all. The only Arab historian to ever suggest that the Arabs have taken any mayor place in modern day Galicia is the Moroccan Al-Maquari, who in 1632 wrote that the Arabs could have taken Lugo in 714. But he was sceptic about this possibility. Also, there's not a simple archaeological rest in Galicia that could suggest the presence of Arab or Moor soldier or colonist in the VIIIth century. On the other hand, Arab anthroponyms are mostly absent from the Galician medieval documentation, except for souther christians and for Arab and Moor serfs, while in Leon plenty of people, Christians, used names like Zeyt iben Abdul, or similar. And we know that Arabs and Moors were established in Astorga... The Ajmar Maymua -written circa 850- are very clear on this point: after a revolt of the Moors in 740 they killed all the Arabs north of the central mountains, around Astorga, and crossed the mountains into the southern half of Spain little time later, in 750-753. From that time all the NW of Hispania north of the mountains, except in the Ebro valley and Catalonia, was left for the Christians.

It is Kingdom of Galicia another name for the Kingdom of Asturias? Well, yes and no. For Franks it was, as it was for Arabs. As Kingdom of Asturias is another name, a modern one, for what they simply call The Kingdom or Kingdom of Oviedo', as I stated before. And I will say it again: the kingdom was born in Asturias, under the leadership of some Pelagius, a Goth and a partisan of Roderick, enemy of the rival family of Wittiza, and as such, forced to flee from Muslim Spain, were most Goths, under the leadership of the family of Witiza, converted to Islam with the aim of preserving their status and properties.

Suevi and Galicia

As for the Suevi kingdom, during the VIth century the identification of the Kingdom of the Suevi with the Kingdom of Galicia was absolute:

i) In the Works of Gregory of Tours: Mirus rex Galliciensis legatos ad Guntchramnum regem dirixit. (GREGORIUS TURONENSIS, HISTORIA FRANCORUM, V.41); De Galliciensibus regibus. In Gallitia quoque novae res actae sunt, quae de superius memorabuntur. Igitur cum Herminichildus, sicut supra diximus, patri infensus esset et in civitate quadam Hispaniae cum coniuge resediret, de imperatoris solatio fretus atque Mironis Galliciensis regis, (...) Quo defuncto, filius eius Eurichus Leuvichildi regis amicitias expetiit, dataque, ut pater fecerat, sacramenta, regnum Galliciensim suscepit. Hoc vero anno cognatus eius Audica, qui sororem illius disponsatam habebat, cum exercitu venit; adpraehensumque clericum facit ac diaconatus sibi praesbiterii ei inponi honorem iobet. Ipse quoque acceptam soceri sui uxorem, Galliciensim regnum obtenuit. Leuvichildus vero filium suum Herminichildum coepit et sicum usque Toletum adduxit, condemnans eum exilio; uxorem tamen eius a Grecis erepere non potuit. (GREGORIUS TURONENSIS, HISTORIA FRANCORUM, VI.43); Defecit lingua sterilis, tantas cupiens enarrare virtutes. Chararici cuiusdam regis Galliciae filius graviter aegrotabat, qui tale taedium incurrerat, ut solo spiritu palpitaret. (GREGORIUS TURONENSIS, MIRACULORUM LIBRI VIII, I.11)

ii) In the acts of the Councils of Braga. During the VIth century the kingdom of the Suevi in Galicia -which extended over the western half of the Roman Gallaecia, and the North of Roman Lusitania- became a territorial kingdom, identified with Galicia also by locals, as shown in the next fragments (Adoric, Remisol, Sardinarius and Lucetius were bishops in cities that belonged to Roman Lusitania: Conimbriga, Lamecum, Veseum and Egitania) By the way, in the second council half of the bishops used Germanic names: Nitigisius of Lugo, Remisol from Viseu, Adoric of Idanha, Wittimer of Ourense and Anila of Tui, while Mailoc was a Briton Celt, bishop of the Brittanorum that have established in northern Galicia.

• Cum Galliciae provinciae episcopi, Lucretius, Andreas, Martinus, Cottus, Ildericus, Lucetius, Timotheus, Maliosus, ex praecepto praefati gloriosissimi Ariamiri regis (Acts of the Ist Council of Braga, year 561)
• Cum Galliciae provinciae episcopi, tam ex Bracarensi quam ex Lucensi synodo, cum suis metropolitanis, praecepto praefati regis simul in metropolitana Bracarensi ecclesia convenissent, id est Martinus, Nitigisius, Remisol, Andreas, Lucetius, Adoric, Wittimer, Sardinarius, Viator, Anila, Polemius, Mailoc (Acts of the IInd Council of Braga, year 572)

This same interpretation was appointed in 1199 by Pope Inocencius III, in an sentence over a territorial conflict inter Braga and Santiago de Compostela: quia rex Gallecie, ut ex veteribus constare dicebas historiis, occupaverat de provincia Lusitaniae has quatuor civitates, ad eas regni sui nomen extenderat, ut per quandam equivocacionem totum etiam regnum Gallecie diceretur” (TB 1199)

iii) The individuality of Gallicia survived, as did the Sueves and Galicians, during the thirteen decades of Gothic dominion (585-714):

• Sancta synodus episcoporum totius Hispaniae, Galliae et Gallaetiae in urbe Toletana praecepto principis Reccaredi congregatur episcoporum numero LXXII (IOANNIS BICLARENSIS, CHRONICON)
• Nec enim sola Gothorum conversio ad cumulum nostrae mercedis accessit, quinimo et Suevorum gentis infinita multitudo, quam presidio celesti nostro regno subiecimus, alieno licet iudicio in heresim deductam, nostro tamen ad veritatis originem studio revocavimus. (…) Pro reverentia sanctissimę fidei, et propter corroborandas hominum invalidas mentes consulto piissimi et gloriosissimi Recaredi regis constituit synodus, ut per omnes ecclesias Spaniae et Galliae vel Gallitiae secundum formam orientalium ecclesiarum, concilii Constantinopolitani, hoc est centum quinquaginta episcoporum symbolum fidei recitetur. (Acts of the IIIth Council of Toledo, year 589)
• Where any scandal arises within the limits of Spain, Gaul, Galicia, or in any other province of our kingdom, and said scandal affects, in any way, any of our subjects, or our government, or that of any of our successors... (Law of King Wamba, FORUM IUDICUM, traslation and edition S. P. Scott)
• Sed ante uxoris dimissionem abebat ex ea filium adulescentem nomine Uitizanem, quern rex in uita sua in regno participem fecit et eum in Tudensem ciuitatem auitare precepit, ut pater teneret regnum Gotorum et filius Sueuorum. Qui ante filii electionem regnauit annis X et cum filio a. V. Finem proprio Toleto discescit. (CHRONICA ROTENSIS)
• Filium suum Uuittizanem in regno sibi socium fecit eumque in ciuitatem Tudensem prouincia Gallecie habitare precepit, ut pater teneret regnum Gotorum et filius Sueuorum. Ante filii electionem regn. an. X, cum filio an. V.' (CHRONICA AD SEBASTIANUS)
• 32. Egica rg. an. XV. Iste dum regnum accepit, filiam Eruigii coniuratione Uambanis abiecit. Filium suum Uittizanem participem secum regno prefecit. Toleto decessit sub imperio Leonis. EPS Gotifred. 33. Uittizza rg. ab. X. Iste in uita patris in Tudense hurbe Gallicie resedit. (CHRONICA ALBELDENSIS, XIV.32-33)

iv) The identification Kingdom of the Suevi = Kingdom of Galicia, was still alive during the IXth century, and later on:

• Sueuos superabit et Gallicie regnum Gotis admiscit. (CHRONICA ALBELDENSIS, XIV.12)
• “Martinus, episcopus Galliciensis, scripsit Librum de virtutibus quatuor, ad Mironem regem Galliciae, quem libellum praetitulavit Honestae vitae formulam.” (SIGEBERT OF GEMBLOUX, LIBER DE SCRIPTORIBUS ECCLESIASTICIS, in PL, vol. CLX, cols. 551, 572.)
• “En este tenpo senoreavan dous reis a Galiza, he a saber: rei Miro a Lugo e rei Arriamiro a Bragãa” [At the time two kings ruled Galicia, and they were king Miro at Lugo and king Arriamiro at Braga] (RUI VASQUES, CORONICA OF ST. MARY OF IRIA, 2.4, year 1468 – in Galician)

Nationalistic bias in the mirror

and not articles written by nationalist biased teachers in Galicia; Those articles I´m citing have sources (primary sources, I may say), from Historical accounts. Nothwithstanding that, I would like someone neutral to review this article if necessary with another point of view, but Sourced.What we cannot use are essays from teachers (some of them belonging to certain Parties)that are not basing their work in scientific texts.

Well. These are clear references not to the book called O Reino Medieval de Galicia by Anselmo López Carreira, but to his author. So, let we speak of the book: ISBN 8496403548, 463 pages. Notes, 225+178+70+150+205+95+189+ 210+150+97+135+120+57+55+20, most of them references to primary sources. The bibliographical references are over 350, cited. And he uses 39 monastic/episcopal/real collections of documents. Suggesting that this book is not sourced, or affirming that it is not based in scientific texts, is simply an error born from dire ignorance – they haven't seen the book - and prejudice. Well, and this is the best part: I can say that I don't agree with some of the held interpretations, but the book is heavily referenced, and the the author don't cheat. Is the author a bad and nasty Galician nationalist like myself? Yes, I suppose so. Is he a militant of any party? I don't know and I don't care, I'm not Torquemada. The book is sourced, and so it can be debated and discussed based on facts, not in beliefs.

Finally, let me of the author: Doctor Anselmo López Carreira is a professor -Catedratico- of High Scool and tutor-professor of the UNED public university. He is also a researcher and scholar of the CSIC, specialized in the edition and study of Galician medieval text from the XIII to the XVI century, and in the history of the Galician cities during that period. He is more than accredited to write a book about the kingdom of Galicia -not the first one!-.

--Froaringus (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC) --Froaringus (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

KINGDOM OF GALICIA s. X-XIV

Editor Agricola wrote: “The suggestion that Alfonso Fruelaz, Sancho Ordonez, and Vermudo II unambiguously were kings of an independent kingdom of Galicia is hard to support from an unbiased evaluation of the scholarly work. The former two are named in a kings' list that portrays them as rulers of the single Asturias/Leon/Galicia entity, but as this conflicts with other accounts, an attempt has been made to try to harmonize the conflict by making them kings of a part of a newly fractionated kingdom for which there is no direct support.”

Well, about the last point, Infanta Semena Ordoñez manifested in a document from the monastery of Celanova, of the year 935: “post discessum huius uite genitoris mei, parauit se diuisio inter Galicia et Terra de Foris vel civitates de fratribus meis qui obtinuerunt ciuitates et Terra de Foris, cui uoluuerunt, concesserunt et donauerunt; similiter illi alii in Galecia fecerunt, modo uero fratrum meum domno Santio principem in regno constituto.

An about the first point, well, I don't agree but I understand your point. I'll explain myself. First, the conclusions: Ordoño II was king of Galicia from 910 to 924, but in Leon only from 914. His son Sancho Ordoñez tried to be king in Leon before being expelled by Alfonso, but later he was ordered king of his own and divided kingdom of Galicia, and he styled himself like that; Bermudo II was ordered king in Santiago and was king in Galicia well before being recognised king in Leon; he didn't go to find Ramiro, but was Ramiro who came to Galicia to end the kingdom of Bermudo -so, it is no easy to show that he was merely a '”Galician backed candidate”: he didn't went into Leon searching for Ramiri, but Ramiro came into Galicia and was defeated. Also, Alfonso V was called Galcian King by the leonese Chronicle of Silos, while his son Bermudo III, who lost most of his kingdom and even his life to king Fernando of Castile, was ordered king in Santiago de Composta -capital of Galicia-, as before him were Sancho Ordoñez or Bermudo II. Then Fernando is addressed by a Galician document from Celanova as functus in regno domus Fernandus princeps super omnem Galletiam. His son Garcia I of Galicia would be King of Galicia from 1065 to 1071, and from 1072 to 1073. His kingdom was taken by his brother Alfonso VI, who called himself “Rex Fernandus in Castille, Toledo and Galicia; from 1090 he gave the government of Galicia to his daughter queen Urraca and his son-in-law count Raimond of Borgoña; their son Alfonso VII was anointed and ordered king in 1111 in Santiago, and the lords of Galicia tried to make him the only master of an independent Galicia. Finally, Alfonso was made emperor of Spain, and before his dead he made his son Fernando II king of Galicia, and Sancho king of Castille. Fernado II, who is buried in the Royal Pantheon of the Cathedral de Santiago together with his grandfather count Raimundo, lord of Galicia, and with queen Berenguela, his mother, and with king Alfonso IX his son, who succedded his father and named himself King of Galicia and Leon:

Ordoño II

In 910 when Garcia attained the throne in the city of Leon, Ordoño, already governor of Galicia in the name of his father Alfonso III, was erected king in Galicia. And he was king in Galicia and in Galicia alone from that year to 914, when he was called to be king also in Leon:

• Nos famuli eius Ordonius rex et Geluira regina' (document n. 21 of the Tumbo A of Santiago, year 911)
• Hordonius rex, seruus Christi in Domino Deo salutem eternam, amen (document n. 22 of the Tumbo A of Santiago, year 911);
• Ego umillimus Hordonius rex in Domino salutem. (document n. 23 of the Tumbo A of Santiago, year 912)
• Quem profecto Ordonium insignem millitem Aldefonsus Pater Magnus & Gloriosus Rex vivens Galliciensium provinciae praefecerat. (…) Siquidem dum Pater adhuc viveret, & ipse Gallicensibus dominaretur, collecto totius provinciae exercitu Baeticam Provinciam petiit. (…) facto solemniter generali Conventu aum acclamando sibi constituit impositoque et diademate a duodecim Pontificibus in solium Regni Legione perunctus est. Igitur anno Regni sui quarto ab expurgatione Maurorum quiescere non sustines (CHRONICA SILENSIS)
• Unde didatum est monasterium samonensis vel restauratum, postquam destructum fuit post mortem domni Offiloni abbatis in era DCCCCª LXª. Pene rex domnus Ordonius in Galletia, cum esset in Loseiro, pervenit ei audiuit quomodo erat destructum ipsum monasterium (Tumbo de Samos, year 944)

For this moment in time is not superfluous to cite a document from the city of Leon: in ciuitate que uoc[i]tatur Legio, territorio Gallicie' ' (doc. from Leon, year 874). Other similar to this one reflected that the rivers Eo-Navia, Cea and Mondego where the frontiers of Galicia, as stated before.

Sancho I Ordoñez

Now, aftter the dead of the great Ordoño II, his elder son Sancho tried to acquire the throne in Leon, but he was expelled by his brother Alfonso, together with Alfonso Froilaz and their Navarran allies (as narrated by ibn Hayyan). He them came to Galicia where he was enthroned in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela and accepted as king among the Galicians. As infanta Semena Ordoñiz narrates in a Galician document from Celanova, the final result was a division of the kingdom, Sancho holding Galicia and Afonso holding The Exterior Land and the Cities. So Sancho was a true Galician king, ordered in Santiago, in a divided kingdom, who styled himself serenissimus rex domnus Santius universe urbe Gallecie princeps. His body was buried with honours in the monastery of Castrelo do Miño:

• post discessum huius uite genitoris mei, parauit se diuisio inter Galicia et Terra de Foris vel civitates de fratribus meis qui obtinuerunt ciuitates et Terra de Foris, cui uoluuerunt, concesserunt et donauerunt; similiter illi alii in Galecia fecerunt, modo uero fratrum meum domno Santio principem in regno constituto (Scemena Ordoñez, in document n. 505 of the Tumbo de Celanova, year 935)
• Posto obitum uero ipsius principis [Ordonius] et et ipsius episcopi [Gundesindus], Santius fultus in regno est in loco apostolico, regens cathedram loci illius Ermegildi presuli... Mortuus uero ipse rex, Ranimirus eligitur in regno. (document n. 265 of the Tumbo de Celanova, year 982)
• Ego exiguus famulus Christi Sancius, nutu altissimi regis rex(document n. 50 of the Tumbo A of Santiago, year 927)
• ego Sancius, predicti serenissimi principis domni Hordonii genitus, dum Deo adiuuante in eodem sepenominato loco apostolico sceptrum acciperem regni... Sancius Rex conf. Goto regina conf. (document n. 51 of the Tumbo A of Santiago, year 927)
• Ego Santius diuinu illius nutu princeps... anno incanationis Christi DCCCXXVI, et ano regni nostri feliciter Iº (document n. 533 of the Tumbo de Celanova, year 927)
• Ego Ansuario uobis domno nostro et serenissimus rex domnus Santius universe urbe Gallecie princeps, necnon et domina nostra, domestica uestra, Goto regina (doc. from Celanova, year 929)
• Sanctius vero Rex multas ecclesias & villas & castella populatus est. Praelia multa gestis & victor extitir (…) in monasterio de Castrello uxor sua Domna Regina Gudo in ripa Minei eum honorifice sepelivit. (CHRONICON IRIENSIS, 10)

Spain and Galicia

In 958 Galicians and Castilian noblemen expelled king Sancho I from the throne. He goes to Spain in search of help among the moors. He obtained it and returned to the throne, imprisoning bishop Sisenand of Santiago:

• Tunc in illis diebus cogitantes comites gallecos, necnon et maganati palatii eicere Sancionem de sede sua Legione et daer tronum glorie regni ad Ordonium prolis Adefonsi (Celanova, 982)
• Era DCCCCa X'VIII anno regni nostri quarto ·& de adventu Spanie secundo. Sub nomine Divino & eius imperio Sanctius Princeps hunc votum a nobis factum (doc. from the monastery of Sahagum, Leon, year 960)

Vermudo / Bermudo II

Ramiro III (961-985), was king in Leon (966-985) and in Galicia (966-982). During his reign a Norman expedition of a hundred ships raided Galicia for three years. The king Ramiro did nothing at all, and finally the Nordic people where defeated, their king Gundered killed, and their ships burned down by the men of the local count Gundisalvo. The disaffection with Ramiro did nothing but grow from that moment to the year 982, when the Galicians erected as their king Veremudo II in Santiago de Compostela. Then the Leonese king came from Leon with the pretension of finishing the rule of Vermudo, but he was interdicted and defeated by the Galicians in Portela de Areas. After just a time Ramiro dies, and the Leonese accepted Vermudo as king.

• Rex vero Ramirus, quum esset in pueritia, & modica scientia, coepit Comites Galleciae factis ac verbis contristari. Ipsi quidem Comites catia ferentes, callide adversus eum cogitaverunt, & Regem alium, nomine Veremendum super se erexerunt; qui fuit ordinatus in Sede Sancti Jacobi Idibus Octobris, Aera MXX. Quo autito, Ramirus ex Legione ad Galleciam properavit. Rex vero Veremendus obviam illi exivit in Portella de Arenas, & coeperunt & coeperunt acriter praeliari. Nullus tandem eorum alteri cedens, separati sunt ab invicem. Ramirus vero reversus est Legionem, ibique próprio morbo decedens XVI, regni sui annio vitam finivit. (CHRONICA SILENSIS)
• qui profecto Veremundus post ubi in finibus Galleciae arcem Regni adeptus est (CHRONICA SILENSIS)
• Rex vero Ramirus, quum esset in pueritia, & modica scientia, coepit Comites Galleciae factis ac verbis contristari. Ipsi quidem Comites catia ferentes, callide adversus eum cogitaverunt, & Regem alium, nomine Veremendum super se erexerunt; qui fuit ordinatus in Sede Sancti Jacobi Idibus Octobris, Aera MXX (CHRONICA SILENSIS)
• Veremudum iuvenem Ordonii Regis filium quondam apud inclytam Beati Iacobi urbem educatum, in regiminis excellentiam sublimare conantur, in Era MXX. (…) Sed cum Ranemirus Rex haec omnia audisset congregato omni exercitu disposiut se venire ad Gallaeciam, Quo audito a Veremudo Rege & ipse adunavit totam Gallaeciam & simul de utraque parte convenrunt as Portellam de Arenas iuxta Montem Rosum, & dimicaverunt ibi, & postquam dimicaverunt, & fuerunt separari, Ranemirus rediit in Legionem (CHRONICON IRIENSIS)
• regnante Veremudo serenissimo principe in foris terra seu in Gallecia dominante. (Samos 988)
• Et quando el rei Veremundo soubo da viinda del rei Renamiro, juntou todolos galegos do reino de Galiza, et foi agardar a Portella de Ares acerqua de Monte Rosso. Et ali ouveron gran peleja et partironse: el rei Renamiro tornouse para Leon, et aos quinze anos de seu reinado fiinceu sua vida, et Vermundo ensenoreou toda a terra (RUI VASQUES, CORONICA OF ST. MARY OF IRIA, 4.12, year 1468 -in Galician)

Alfonso V

The Chronicon of Silos styled Alfonso V as Galiciensis Regis:

• Interim Fernandus Sanciam filiam Aldefonsi Galleciensis Regis nobilissimam puellam Veremundo fratre regales sororis nuptias exhibente, in conjugium accepit. Ceterum Veremundus Infans a finibus Galliciensium usque ad fluvium Pisorga, qui Cantabriensium regnum separat, obeunte patre, Rex constituitur. (CHRONICA SILENSIS)
• Siquidem Santius Cantabriensium post mortem Aldefonsi Galleciensium Principis, Veremundo teneris annis impedito, partem regni sui, videlicet a flumine Pisorga ad usque Ceyam suo domino mancipaverat. Porro Veremundus asulta jam aerare, ubi Sancius Rex spiravit, paternum Regnum vindicare disposuit. (CHRONICA SILENSIS)

Bermudo III

Bermudo III was ordered king in Santiago de Compostela, having as patrinus the bishop Vistrarius. Fighting with the king of Navarre Sancho he loose all the leoneses territories of his kingdom; he get killed in battle with Fernando, successor of Sancho:

• Siquidem Santius Cantabriensium post mortem Aldefonsi Galleciensium Principis, Veremundo teneris annis impedito, partem regni sui, videlicet a flumine Pisorga ad usque Ceyam suo domino mancipaverat. Porro Veremundus asulta jam aerare, ubi Sancius Rex spiravit, paternum Regnum vindicare disposuit. (CHRONICA SILENSIS)

Fernando II

Fernando was then king from 1037 to 1065. He divided the kingdom inter his sons: Galicia to Garcia, Leon to Afonso and Castile to Sancho.

• Et functus in regno domus Fernandus princeps super omnem Galletiam (document n. 534 of the Tumbo de Celanova, year 1060)
• Fernandus deinde, extinto Veremundo, a finibus Gallecia omne regnum sua ditione degitur. (CHRONICA SILENSIS)
• Garsias deinceps acer, & furibundus coepit occaisones belli aperte quarere, atque fraternum sanguinem sintiens, ejusdem fines, quos attingere poterar, hostiliter devastare. Quibus auditis Fernandus Rex collecto a finibus Galleciae inmenso exercitu, injuriam regni ulcisci prosperat. (CHRONICA SILENSIS)

Garcia I of Galicia

Garcia II of Galicia (1042-1090), king de Galicia (1065-1073). Son of Fernando I, who divided his kingdom:

• In era MCIII et quotum XIII Kls Martias. In nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Hoc est iuramentum quod iuro ego Garsias Dei gratia Rex ad vos fideles meos episcopo Domino Vestriario, Comite Domino Mido, Comite Domino Sancio. (doc. from Lugo, year 1065)
• Aldefonsus itaque, quem prae omnibus liberis carum habebat, campis Gothorum praefecti, atque omne Legionensium regnum suae ditioni mancipavit. Constituit quoque Sancium primogenitum filium suum super Castellam Regen. Necnon & juniorem Garsiam Galleciae praetulit. (CHRONICA SILENSIS)
• Garsea autem natu minori Galleciam cum Portugalia et Ispalensem regionem cum ciuitate Badalioth' (CHRONICON COMPOSTELLANUM)

After a treacherous war, Afonso conquered the three kingdoms, keeping king Garcia prisoner and chained until his death. The next fragment is in old spanish:

• Estonces el rey don Sancho touo quel conseiaua bien el Çid, et enuio luego sus cartas al rey don Alffonso de Leon su hermano que se uiesse com el en Sant Fagund. (…) Alli dixo el rey don Sancho al rey don Alffonso, do seyen en su fabla de su uista daquello por que eran alli: “ don Alffonso, nuestro padre por nuestros peccados dexonos la tierra mal partida, et dio al rey don Garcia la mayor parte del reyno [our father because of our sins left the land badly divided, and to king Garcia the most of the kingdom] et uos fincastes el mas deseredado de todos nos et com mas poca tierra; et por eso, ternia yo de por bien de toller et tomar al rey don Garcia la tierra quel dio nuestro padre.” (PRIMERA CRONICA GENERAL, 817)

Alfonso VI

Alfonso VI (1040-1109), king of Leon (1069-1109), Castile (1072-1109) and Galicia (1073-1109) reunitedited all the kingdoms of his brothers:

• de temporibus Ordonii regis et Veremudi regis et de regno in regnum usque in istis temporibus Adefonsi regis. (doc. from the Monatery of Samos, year 1074)

Conqueror of Toledo, the old Visigothic capital. In the next document is not styled king of Leon or of Catille, but of Toledo, Spain and Galicia:

• regnante Adephonso victoriosissimo rege in Toleto, & in Hispania, & Gallecia (doc. from Lugo, year 1088)

He gave the government of Galicia to the man he gave her daughter in marry, Raymond of Burgundy, count of Amous, in 1090. This decision counted with the opposition of part of the nobility of Galicia, among them count Rodrigo Ovequez and the bishop of Santiago de Compostela Pedro Paz, who as a result tried to give the kingdom of Galicia to Wiliam de Conqueror:

• Quem Episcopus praedictus Rex Alfonsus expulit ab Ecclesia B. Jacobi, & diu tenuit captum in compedibus, imposito ei nomine proditoris. Quidam enim ejus inimici invidia zelo dixerunt, quod Galeciae Regnum prodere Regi Anglorum & Normanorum & auferre Regi Hispanorum satageret. (HISTORIA COMPOSTELLANA II.2).

Count Raymond of Burgundy and queen Urraca

Count Raymond of Amous, son of William I count of Burgundy, an brother to Pope Calixtus II, married the infanta Urraca, daughter of Alfonso VI, in 1090. He was lord and governor of Galicia from this year to his death in 1107. He was buried in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. Of course, Galicia was not reduced to the category of county, but the government of Galicia was a privilege granted to the son-in-law of the King:

• comes dominus Ramundus imperans Gallicia sub gratia imperatoris Ildefonsi (Ferreiro, Historia de la Santa Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela, year 1095)
• ego comes Raimundus totius Gallecie senior et dominus (Tumbo A de Santiago, year 1095)

serenissimus totius Gallecie comes R(aimundus) in hanc scripturam que fieri iussi cf. (notarial document from Carboeiro, year 1096)

• in urbe Gallecia regnante comite Raimundus con coniuge sua filia Adefonsus rex (notarial document from the monastery of Xubia, year 1096)
• Regnante rege Adefonso in Toleto et comite regimundo in Gallecia (Tumbo de Samos, year 1100)

rex Fredinandiz in Toletula cum Legione imperante et eius gener Raymundus comes Gallecia (Tumbo de Lourenzá, year 1104)

• ego Raimundus totius Gallecie consul (Tumbo A de Santiago, year 1105)
• et Reimondo duce Galleciam mandante (doc. from Braga, year 1105)
• regi Adefonso imperante Toleto et eius generer, comite Raymundo, Gallecia (Tumbo de Lourenzá, year 1107)
• ego comes domnus Raimundus, totius Gallecie imperator seu Adefonsi Tolletane principis gener (Tumbo A de Santiago, year 1107)
• ego consul domnus Raimundus, totius Gallecie princeps (Tumbo A de Santiago, año 1107)
• en presença do dito Reimundo, principe de toda Galiza (RUI VASQUES, CORONICA OF ST. MARY OF IRIA, 5.3, year 1468)

When he dies, his widow queen Urraca, styled herself totius Gallecie domina (Tumbo A de Santiago, year 1107) and tocius Gallecie imperatrix (doc. from Lugo, year 1108).

Alfonso VII

Son of Raimund and Urraca, and cousin of Henry first king of Portugal, his grandfather Afonso VI make him successor to his father, in assembly with the nobleman of Galicia, where a sacred oath was granted:

• Omne equidem Gallaetia regimen & ius pueri pater obtinuit, & ideo uos omnes qui eius iura & honores eo vivo tenuistis, & eo moruo adhuc tenetis, filio eius, nepoti meo, proculdubio famulaturos exhibeo & totam ei Gallaetiam concedo, si eius mater Urraca uirum ducere uoluerit … huiusmodi iusiurandum vos dare praecipio, quatenus praesentem puerum in Dominum suscipiatis & susceptum cautius & vigilantibus custodiatis honorem etiam quem uobis praesentibus ei attribuo, etiam contra me ipsum si iniuriosus ipsi extitero, totis uiribus deffendatis. (HISTORIA COMPOSTELLANA, I.46)

Urraca married the Aragonese king in 1109. As a result the Galician noblemen decided to make Alfonso VII king, in Santiago de Compostela, in 1111, when he was anointed by the archbishop Diego of Santiago:

• si Regina mater mea thoro viduitatis contenta maneret, totius Gallaeciae Regnum in manibus vestris & patrui mei Vienensis Archiespiscopi eius dominio subiugaretur. Si vero maritale foedus iniret, rediret ad me Regnum Gallaeciae... Tu autem quem ego prae omnibus huiusmodi hominibus amplector & ueneror, utpote Dmn. Meum, patronum meum, qui me fonte baptismatis regenerasti, & post nom longum tempus in Ecclesia S. Iacobi in Regem unxisti. (HISTORIA COMPOSTELLANA, I.108)
• Sic dono et confirmo uobis, sicut uobis iam dedi in morte uiri mei comitis Domni Raimundi et sicut filius meus rex domnus Alfonsus uobis dedit et confirmauit, quando eum eligistis regem in ecclesia uestra (Tumbo A de Santiago, year 1112)
• Ego Urraca, Dei Nutu, Hispanie Regina, nobilissimi regis domni Adefonsi Constantieque regina filia, una con filio meo domno Ildefonso in fastigia regni iam benedicto et consecrato (Tumbo A de Santiago, year 1115)

I offer the first fragment, in Spanish translation:

• “Reverendísimo padre y señor, en modo alguno creo que se oculte a tu santidad que a la muerte de mi padre, el conde Raimundo, el muy noble rey Alfonso, mi abuelo, siendo yo todavía niño, convocó en León a los próceres de toda Galicia y ordenó que éstos me rindieran homenaje y prestaran juramento, y tras recibir el juramento de cada uno de aquéllos, me dio el señorío de toda Galicia. Además, el rey don Alfonso, mi abuelo, puso esta condición, que si la reina, mi madre, se contentara con permanecer en el estado de viudedad, todo el reino de Galicia, en vuestras manos y en las de mi tio el arzobispo de Vienne, quedaría sometido a su dominio; pero si firmara contrato matrimonial, regresaría a mi el reino de Galicia. Esto mi propia madre y todos los próceres de Galicia lo sancionaron con juramento; y me alegro de que tu también, santísimo padre, hubieras intervenido (…) protector mío, que me regeneraste en la fuente del bautismo y no mucho tiempo después me ungiste en la iglesia de Santiago como rey, en quien está echada el ancla de mi confianza, dígnate prestarme ayuda para conseguir mi reino (E. Falke, Hist. Comp., I.108, pág. 255)

For years queen Urraca would fight his son for the control of the Kindom of Galicia:

• regina V. salutem. qualiter equidem uestre uirtutis gratia, uestra prudentia Gallicie regnum defenderitis (HISTORIA COMPOSTELLANA, I.75.1)
• Regina ut nouit filium suum uenisse in Gallaeciam & ab Episcopo S. Iacobi ceterisque comprouincilalibus Baronibus in Regem honorifice Compostellae susceptum, admodum molestatur, & fibi pisi diffidens, Gallaeciae Regnum omnino amisisse timet...”Reverendo Pater: Quamquam nequitia & imperitia mea exigat me privari Regni Gallaeciae...”... Ceterum Episcopus, nec precibus, nec promisis, nec lacrymis labefactus, pro posse suo se nullatenus a iustitia exhorbitare affirmat. Vocat Gallaeciae Regnum Proceres periuros, quicumque Regi puero Gallaeciae Regnum jurauerint, si non adiuvent eum ad acquirendum & retinendum idem Regnum (HISTORIA COMPOSTELLANA, I.109.2)

Finally Alfonso acquired also the Kingdoms of Leon, Castille and Toledo. He have two sons, Fernando, king of Galicia and Leon, and Sancho, king of Castille:

• tenente Gallicie rex Fernandus (doc. from the monastery of Xuvia, 1152)
• Adefonsus Ymperator, una cum coniuge sua dona Riga dominante regnante in tota Yspania. Sancius rex in Castella. Fredenandus rex in Galicia. Urraka regina in Asturias (document from the monastery of Vilanova de Oscos -Asturias-, year 1153)
• Imperatoris Adefonsus, regis Fernandi imperat Galletia. (document from the monastery of Vilanova de Oscos -Asturias-, year 1155)
• Adefonsus dei gratia hispaniarum imperator laudat et confirmat. Sanctius filius eius rex Castelle laudat et confirmat. Fernandus filius eius rex Galletie laudat et confirmat (document from Lugo, year 1155)

Alfonso VII died in 1157. His wife queen Berengela, mother of Alfonso II, rests in the Royal Pantheon of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, capital of Galicia.

Fernando II (1137-1188), king of Galicia and Leon

After the decease of Afonso VII, Fernando is THE king of Galicia and Leon:

• Facta carta sub era Ia Ca LXLa Va et quotum VII idus octobris; anno quo Adefonsus, clarissimus imperator, uiam est ingressus uniuerse carnis et cepit regnare filius eius Fernandus in Legione et Gallecia. (Tumbo of the monastery of Toxos Outos, year 1157)
• Regnante rex Fernando in Legione et Galleciam (document from the monastery of Vilanova de Oscos -Asturias-, year 1161)
• Reynante rey don Fernando en Castella e en Galiça (document from the monastery of Vilanova de Oscos -Asturias-, year 1162, XIIIth century copy and translation in Galician)
• regnante in Legione et in Gallecia rex Fernandus; (doc. from the monastery of Oseira, 1162)
• Regis Fernandus regnante Galecia. (document from the monastery of Vilanova de Oscos -Asturias-, year 1163)
• Regis Fernandus regnante in Legione et Gallecia et Asturias (document from the monastery of Vilanova de Oscos -Asturias-, year 1168)

He died by 1188, and his body rests in the Royal Pantheon of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela.

Alfonso IX

Afonso IX (1171-1230), king of Leon and Galicia (1188-1230). He styled himself as rex legionis or rex legionis et Galletie:

• Ego Adefonsus Dei gratia rex Legionis et Galletie... SIGNUM ADEFONSI REGIS LEGIONIS ET GALLECIE (Tumbo A de Santiago de Compostela, year 1189); Ego Adefonsus Dei gratia rex Legionis et Gallecie (document from the monastery of Samos, year 1190); Ego Adefonsus Dei gratia rex Legionis et Gallecie (document from the monastery of Samos, year 1192); Ego Adefonssus Dei gratia rex Legionis et Gallecie (Tumbo B de Santiago, year 1193); Ego Adefonsus Dei gratia rex Legionis et Gallecie (Tumbo B de Santiago, year 1195); Ego Adefonsus Dei gracia rex Legionis et Gallecie (Tumbo B de Santiago, year 1200); Ego Adefonsus Dei gratia rex Legionis et Galletie (Tumbo A de Santiago de Compostela, year 1208); ego Adefonsus Dei gratia rex Legionis et Galletie (Tumbo A de Santiago de Compostela, year 1209); ego Alfonsus Dei gratia Legionis rex et Gallecie (Tumbo A de Santiago de Compostela, year 1211); ego Alfonsus Dei gratia Legionis rex et Gallecie (Tumbo A de Santiago de Compostela, year 1212); ego A(defonsus) Dei gratia Legionis rex et Gallecie (Tumbo A de Santiago de Compostela, year 1214);Alfonsus Dei gratia rex Legionis et Gallecie (Tumbo B de Santiago, year 1215); ego Adefonsus Dei gratia Legionis rex et Gallecie (Tumbo A de Santiago de Compostela, year 1218); ego Adefonssus Dei gratia Legionis rex et Gallecie (Tumbo B de Santiago de Compostela, year 1227); ego Adefonsus Dei gratia rex Legionis et Gallecie (Tumbo B de Santiago de Compostela, year 1228); ego Adefonsus Dei gratia rex Legionis, Gallecie et Badallocii (Tumbo B de Santiago de Compostela, year 1230)...

He died by 1230, after 48 years of reign, trying to maintain the independence of his states from the thriving Castile, but his son Fernando, who was king of Castille from the year 1217, adquired of his sisters the sucesory rights. Afonso IX is buries in the Royal Pantheon of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, capital of Galicia:

Ferdinand III and sucessors

Fernando III el Santo (c. 1201-1252), was king of Castille and Toledo (1217- 1252) and of Leon and Galicia (1230-1252):

• Fernandus Dei gratia rex Castelle et Tolleti, Legionis et Gallecie (Tumbo B de Santiago, year 1232)

His successors Alfonso X (1252-1284), Sancho IV (1284-1295), Fernando IV (1295-1312), Alfonso XI (1312-1350), Pedro I (1350-1369) will add titles to their names with the conquest of the Muslim kingdoms of souther Spain:

• yo Don Alfonso por la gracia de Dios rey de Castella, de Toledo de Leon de Gallizia de Sevilla de Cordova de Murcia de Iahen. (Tumbo B de Santiago, year 1255)
• don Sancho por la graçia de Dios rey de Castiella, de Leon et de Tolledo, de Gallicia, de Sevilla, de Cordova, de Murcia, de Iahen et del Algarbe et sennor de Molina. (Tumbo B de Santiago, year 1293)
• Don Fernando por la gracia de Dios rey de Castiella, de Leon, de Toledo, de Galliçia, de Sevilla, de Cordova, de Murcia, de Iahen et del Algarbe et sennor de Molina. (Tumbo B de Santiago, year 1304)
• Don Alffonso por la graçia de Dios rey de Castiella, de Leon, de Tolledo, de Gallizia, de Sevilla, de Cordova, de Murcia, de Iahen et del Algarbem et senor de Molina. (Tumbo B de Santiago, year 1320)
• Sepam quantos esta carta virem, commo yo don Pedro por la gracia de Dios rey de Castiella, de Leon, de Toledo, de Galisia, de Sevilla, de Cuerdova, de Murçia, de Jahen, del Algarbe, de Algesira et sennor de Molina (doc. from Lugo, year 1353)

But of course, king of Galicia were not a mere title, and the kingdom, united under the same king with Leon, Castille... persisted:

• Et sobresto mandamos a los adelantados et a los conçeios et a los merinos et a los juyses et a todo los nuestros aportellados que son o fueren d'aqui adelante en el regno de Galliçia que gelos guarden et fasan aguardar (lugo, 1304)
• yo el ynfante don Felipe, fijo del moy noble rey don Sancho, señor de Cabrera e de Riveyra, e pertigueiro mayor de tierra de Santiago, e mayordomo mayor del rey, e su adelantado mayor en el reyno de Galliça (doc. from Lugo, year 1327)
• a todos los conceios, e alcalles, alguaciles, justicias e comendadores de las tierras, villas e lugares del regno de Gallisia (doc. from Lugo, year 1340)
• El rrey dom Afonso padre del rrey dom Pedro et del rrey don Enrrique dou por jur de herdade a dom pedro de castro todaslas herdades et bees que a ordeen do tenple ouve enos rreynos de Leon et de Galliza. (Livro de Tenças do Cabido de Santiago, circa 1352)
• Bien sabedes en como el conde don Enrrique, e don Fernando de Castro, e otros caballeros e escuderos del reyno de Gallisia andan en mio desservicio quemando e robando e destruyendo la mi tierra (doc. from Lugo, year 1355)
• manda a todos los adelantados e merinos del regno de Gallisia que non entren en los cotos e señorios del dicho obispo e de su yglesia, nin fagan y justicia, nin emprasen, nin tomen ningua cosa a aquelos que y moraren (doc. from Lugo, year 1358)
• mando a todos los adelantados et merynos et alcalles, et otros justiçias qualesquer del regno de Gallisia (doc. from Lugo, 1365)
• et eu devo aver de dereyto, por parte de Iohan Broollo, meu padre, et de minna nana, Moor Arias, en quaes terras quer et sub quaes signos quer en todo o reyno de Gallisia (doc. from Lugo, year 1366 – in Galician)
• et se por ventura nos ouvermos mester venyades connosco a fronteyra ou fora do regno de Gallisa que seiamos tiudos de vos poermos terra et dar soldo, segundo que devemos a dar a home fillodalgo tal commo vos et do linagen do que sodes (doc. from Lugo, year 1369 – in Galician)
• Et sy lo assy fazer non quisierdes, mandamos a todollos conçeios e otros ofiçiales qualesquier de todallas çibdades et villas et lugares del regno de Galiza (Tumbo B de Santiago, year 1369)

Fernando I of Portugal, king in Galicia

After years of civil war of the rival kings Pedro I and Enrique II, with most Galician lords and counts supporting Pedro I, this king was killed by a Galician minor noble, Fernan Peres de Andrade o Boo, who after that ascended to mayor positions. But most Galicians didn't accept Enrique as king, calling as king the king of Portugal, Fernando I (1367-1383), who was recognized in most of Galicia just for several months, but in some cities like Tui and Coruña, where he minted coins, he was recognized for several years:

• Como el-rei D Pedro foi morto... outros... escreueram logo a el-rei de Portugal que se sua mercê fosse de os hauer por seus que leuantarian uoz por ele... E as cidades e villas que tomaram sua voz foran estas: Carmona, Samora, Ciudad Rodrigo, Alcantara, Valencia d'Alcantara; e mais: de Galliza, a cidade de Tuy, Padron, A Rrocha, a Coruña, Saluaterra, Bayona, Alhariz, Milmanda, Arahujo, a cidade d'Orense, a villa de Ribadauia, e Lugo, a cidade de S. Thiago, que se deu mais tarde e com certas condições. (Fernão Lopes, CHRONICA DO REI DON FERNANDO, XXV)
• 'seendo no thesouro de Santiago … por quanto estaua a dita iglesia e cidade intedicta por quanto os do Concello da dita cidade se alçaran con el Rey de Portugal et con dom Fernando de Castro et banyron dende ao arcobispo dom Rodrigo' (Tumbo C de Santiago, year 1371-in Galician)

But he was finally defeated by Enrique and his French allies. Many Galician noblemen passed into Portugal as result of this fight:

• por cuanto el dicho Álvar Peres se fuera deste regno al rey de Portogal (Tumbo B de Santiago, year 1384)

After this defeat, still many Galicians -including the archbishop of Santiago, D. Juan Garcia Manrique- will support the Portuguese king João I, when he declared war on Castille in 1396.

--Froaringus (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC) --Froaringus (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuity of the kingdom of Galicia

These are just examples:

6th century:

• Mirus rex Galliciensis legatos ad Guntchramnum regem dirixit. (GREGORIUS TURONENSIS, HISTORIA FRANCORUM, V.41: s. VI)

7th century:

• Where any scandal arises within the limits of Spain, Gaul, Galicia, or in any other province of our kingdom, and said scandal affects, in any way, any of our subjects, or our government, or that of any of our successors... (Law of King Wamba, FORUM IUDICUM, traslation and edition S. P. Scott)

8th century:

• DCCXCVIII. Venit etiam et legatus Hadefonsi regis Galleciae et Asturiae, nomine Froia, papilionem mirae pulchritudinis praesentans. (…) Hadefonsus rex Galleciae et Asturiae praedata Olisipona ultima Hispaniae civitate insignia victoriae suae loricas, mulos captivosque Mauros domno regi per legatos suos Froiam et Basiliscum hiemis tempore misit. (ANNALES REGNI FRANCORUM)

9th century:

• Uitizanem, quern rex in uita sua in regno participem fecit et eum in Tudensem ciuitatem auitare precepit, ut pater teneret regnum Gotorum et filius Sueuorum. Qui ante filii electionem regnauit annis X et cum filio a. V. (CHRONICA ROTENSIS, 4)

10th century:

• Ego Ansuario uobis domno nostro et serenissimus rex domnus Santius universe urbe Gallecie princeps, necnon et domina nostra, domestica uestra, Goto regina (doc. from Celanova, year 929)

11th century:

• Et functus in regno domus Fernandus princeps super omnem Galletiam (document n. 534 of the Tumbo de Celanova, year 1060)
• regnante Adephonso victoriosissimo rege in Toleto, & in Hispania, & Gallecia (doc. from Lugo, year 1088)

12th century:

• si Regina mater mea thoro viduitatis contenta maneret, totius Gallaeciae Regnum in manibus vestris & patrui mei Vienensis Archiespiscopi eius dominio subiugaretur. Si vero maritale foedus iniret, rediret ad me Regnum Gallaeciae... Tu autem quem ego prae omnibus huiusmodi hominibus amplector & ueneror, utpote Dmn. Meum, patronum meum, qui me fonte baptismatis regenerasti, & post nom longum tempus in Ecclesia S. Iacobi in Regem unxisti. (HISTORIA COMPOSTELLANA, I.108)
• Adefonsus dei gratia hispaniarum imperator laudat et confirmat. Sanctius filius eius rex Castelle laudat et confirmat. Fernandus filius eius rex Galletie laudat et confirmat (document from Lugo, year 1155)
• Regis Fernandus regnante Galecia. (document from the monastery of Vilanova de Oscos -Asturias-, year 1163)

13th century:

• ego Adefonsus Dei gratia rex Legionis et Gallecie (Tumbo B de Santiago de Compostela, year 1228);
• Fernandus Dei gratia rex Castelle et Tolleti, Legionis et Gallecie (Tumbo B de Santiago, year 1232)

14th century:

• Et sobresto mandamos a los adelantados et a los conçeios et a los merinos et a los juyses et a todo los nuestros aportellados que son o fueren d'aqui adelante en el regno de Galliçia que gelos guarden et fasan aguardar (lugo, 1304)
• et eu devo aver de dereyto, por parte de Iohan Broollo, meu padre, et de minna nana, Moor Arias, en quaes terras quer et sub quaes signos quer en todo o reyno de Gallisia (doc. from Lugo, year 1366 – in Galician)
• et se por ventura nos ouvermos mester venyades connosco a fronteyra ou fora do regno de Gallisa que seiamos tiudos de vos poermos terra et dar soldo, segundo que devemos a dar a home fillodalgo tal commo vos et do linagen do que sodes (doc. from Lugo, year 1369 – in Galician)
• Et sy lo assy fazer non quisierdes, mandamos a todollos conçeios e otros ofiçiales qualesquier de todallas çibdades et villas et lugares del regno de Galiza (Tumbo B de Santiago, year 1369)

15th century:

• herdades et cassas et vinnas et arvores et de todo o outro aver movil et rays, que me a min ficaron et ficou dos ditos meu padre et madre en quaes terras quer que seian et sub quaes signos quer, outrosy en todo o reyno de Gallisa (doc. from Lugo, year 1445)
• Don Enrique pola graçia de Dios rey de Castilla', de Leon, de Toledo, de Galisia, de Sevilla, de Cordoba, de Murçia, de Jahen et del Algarbe, de Algesira e señor de Biscaya e de Molina, a vos don Alvaro de Astuniga conde de Plasençia mi justiçia mayor e del mi consejo, e Diego Peres Sarmento conde Santa Marta mi adelantado mayor enel dicho mi regno de Galisia (doc.de Ourense, year 1455)
• En este encomedio levantouse toda a terra con a Santa Irmandade, entanto que nunca deixaron fortolleza en todo o reino de Galiza. Et esto foi porla maa vivenda dos caballeiros que non fazian senon furtar et roubar. Et por esto quiso Nostro Señor tornar porlo seu pobóó, que era este reino de Galiza, todo destroido pola maa vivenda destes caballeiros (RUI VASQUES, CORONICA OF ST. MARY OF IRIA, 3.2, year 1468 -in Galician)
• Muy altos e poderosos principes Rey e Reyna senores. Las cosas que los procuradores de las cibdades villas e logares del Reyno de galizia que aqui son venidos demandan (Letter from the councils of Galicia to the kings, year 1482)

16th century:

• 'Gobernador en este reyno de gallizia e del noble virtuso señor el doctor juan cornejo del consejo asimismo de sus altzas e su alcalde mayor en este dicho reino se hizo en la cibdad de Santiago a seis dias andados del mes de junio deste presente año de quinientos con consentimiento de los procuradores de las cinco provincias deste dicho reyno' (Colección Diplomárica de Galicia Histórica, year 1500, in Spanish)
• En la cibdad de Santiago de compostela del Reyno de Galizia (doc. From Santiago, year 1506)
• Y por esta nuestra carta mandamos a todos los conçejos, justiçias, regidores, cavalleros, escuderos, ofiçiales y omes buenos, y otras qualesquier personas del dicho reyno de Galiçia.(royal letter, year 1552)
• En el año de 1580 se volvió a incorporar el reino de Portugal en las Coronas de Galicia, Leon I Castilla (FRAY FELIPE DE LA GANDARA, ARMAS Y TRIUNFOS...DE LOS HIJOS DE GALICIA, year 1662)
• Don Diego de las Mariñas, señor de Parga y de Junquera, gobernador de la gente de guerra deste Reyno de Galicia (doc. from de Audiencia de Galicia, year 1594)

17th century:

• que qualesquiera justicia e justicias de su fuero de los reinos y señorios del Rey Nuestro Señor deste reino de Galicia o desde Castilla o desde Portugal (Doc. University of Santiago, year 1603)
• Meu señor uerdadeiro: Duas cartas tenho de vosa merçé de dez ed nouembro y de onse de decembre, porque veijo as suas maos moitas e infinitas ueçes … Ternissimamente me há lastimado la muerte del señor don Diego de Castro, porque era un angel y por hermano del señor don Rodrigo de Castro , que ni en Galiçia ni en Castilla ni en el mundo ay mejor cauallero, y solo el basta a honrrar nuestra naçion … ¿Pues que nacion en el mundo ha dado en su profeçion cauallero como el comendador Andrés de Prada, secretario del Consejo de Estado de Su Majestad? ¿Que virreis ha tenido Nápoles como los condes de Lemos, ni las Indias como el conde de Monterry? Oy seruimos a Su Majestad tres enbaxadores gallegos...(Letter of the Count of Gondomar to the secretary of state Andrés de Prada, year 1614, in Galician and Spanish)
• Y alli en el dicho tablado el dicho alcalde mas antiguo dara boces altas e ynteligibles, despues que los reyes de armas mandaran oyr al pueblo por tres beces, dira lo que se sigue: Galicia, Galicia, Galicia. Despues y luego el regidor mas antiguo a quien esta encargado el lebantar el estandarte por el rey nuestro señor don Felipe Quarto deste nonbre, que Dios Nuestro señor lo tomara en las manos donde estubiere y lo alçara tres beces diciendo por cada vez la ciudad de Santiago cabeza del reyno de Galicia por el don el don Phelipe quarto nuestro señor. Lebanta este estandarte. Biba el rey. Biba el rey. Biba el rey. Y con esto se pondran todos a caballo paseandose por el dicho estandarte bayan a las puertas arcobispales.(Doc. University of Santiago, year 1621)
• El Rey. Junta, Cavalleros, Nobles, escuderos y hombres buenos del mi Reyno de Galicia (royal letter to the Junta de Galicia, year 1640)

18th century:

• nuestros conventos y monasterios sitos en el Reyno de Galicia (doc. from Ribadavia, year 1762)
• 'Muy Sr. mio: el importante astillero del Ferrol esta Ciudad y su puerto juntamente con el de Vigo son los principales objetos a que se debe presupomir que los ingleses enemigos de esta monarchia dirijan siempre cualesquiera empresa que intenten hazer en el Reino de Galicia y su Costa.' (letter of the Marquis of Croix to the minister of State, year 1761)
• ciudad de Santiago, voto en Cortes de S. M., capital del Reino de Galicia (doc. From Santiago, year 1788)

19th century:

• D. Juan Francisco Barrié … dijo que en la ria del puerto de Muros tiene aprestados y prontos para dar vela y hacerse a la mar contra la nacion britanica dos buques; y necesitando para el efecto varios utensilios y municiones de guerra, mediante lo pevenido en la Real Ordenanza de Corso, ha hecho la correspondiente solicitud al Exmo. Sr. Capitan General de este Reino de Galicia. (doc. from A Coruña, year 1805)
• Habitantes de Galicia: El tirano de la Francia ha manifestado el Universo que su Exercito ha conquistado España y que el hermoso Reyno de Galicia ha recibido sus tropas com Hermanos … Tales son las falsedades que divulga el perfido Napoleon (Letter of Vice-Admiral G. Berkeley to the inhabitants of Galicia during the Napoleonic Wars, year 1809)

By 1833 the kingdom, as a political entity, was terminated; as a title, still today it belongs to Juan Carlos I king of Spain.

--Froaringus (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Froaringus, you´re totally right. And I think, it´s vital for this article to restore part of it and traslate from a objective wiki like Portugese or French.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy

The user Nuninho keeps on (I think that in good faith) rewriting the article using information which is not contrasted (to say it softly). The wiki articles used as reference(I think mainly from French) are biased, very biased. In fact they are according to the new Galician nationalist scholars, who ignore the Christian and Muslim Chronicles (that is, the only testimonies of those centuries), and come up with a fantastic theory suiting their wanderings. We must also bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a primary source nor a place for original theories. Let me try to bring some examples which may clarify this issue:

1. there is NOT A SINGLE law, decree, chronicle, etc. enacted by a King of Galicia.(but we have plenty of them with Asturorum Princeps, or King in Oviedo, for example).
2. Gallaecia was only a geographical description, corresponding to the Roman Province.(conversely nobody claims the former territories of the Tarraconensis for the current Catalonian province of Tarragona). As an example, as the chronicle of Al Maqqari goes(as you´ve guessed, Arab): The Ismaelits, fighting the polytheists and forcing them to emigrate till Ariyula, from the Franks land came, and had conquered Pamplona in Galicia.... This Basque city was not obviously Galician, but IN THE FORMER GALLAECIA.
3. The Alfonsine Chronicles state that circa 754 Fruela I fights and defeats the Galicians. What was he doing, fighting his own people?.
4. If you have a look at the primary sources, or the studies of serious European Mediaevalists (for example, Alejandro Herculano, Portuguese), you won´t find any base for this fantasy.

With best regards --Xareu bs (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Xareu, Pamplona was not in Gallaecia. There are terminological issues that this article needs to sort out, but there is not "netural version", as you said in your edit summary. I'd prefer if instead of reverting, you worked on rewriting and sourcing, since neither version is very good. Frankly, English-language sources are best, and none of you appear to be particularly familiar with them. The Latin sources violate WP:OR and Spanish and Portuguese sources carry a much higher likelihood of being biased and nationalistic than do the English ones, however much more meagre they are in number and breadth. Srnec (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, debating with the silence

I said I was leaving WP, and once again it appears as I lied. And I fear once again I'll say “this is the last time, pal, the last time!”. My motives: is unacceptable to leave several hundreds of years of local history out because one person don't like how the article treats one certain period. But, well I have a life.

Arguing, not accusing

“The user Nuninho keeps on (I think that in good faith) rewriting the article using information which is not contrasted (to say it softly). The wiki articles used as reference(I think mainly from French) are biased, very biased. In fact they are according are according to the new Galician nationalist scholars, who ignore the Christian and Muslim Chronicles (that is, the only testimonies of those centuries)” (Xareu bs; 17:43, 6 January 2010; UTC) 

The article as it is in the last revision of Nuninho contains more than ten bibliographical references and near a hundred notes. Not bad. It's easier to write the references are biased or not constrasted than to probe it. Well, I don't pretend that anybody will read “new” historical Galician “nationalistic” works from the C15th (Chronicle of St Mary of Iria of Roi Vasques), C16th (Vasco da Ponte, Count of Gondomar), C17th (Count of Lemos, Fray Felipe de la Gandara...), C18th (Sarmiento...) or C19th (Murguia, López Ferreiro...), but, as I said before, and taking as an example the work of Anselmo López Carreira (ISBN 8496403548), he uses, cites, and criticize the three Asturian chronicles, but he also uses Frankish and Arab sources, and private and public document (with more than 1000 notes in a book of 400 pages, most of these notes are references to primary sources). On the Arab Chronicles I suggest reading “Galicia y los Gallegos en las fuentes árabes Medievales” (Ana Maria Carballeira Debasa, Madrid, 2007: ISBN: 9788400085766): For the Arabs all the Northwest of Hispania was Galicia, their inhabitants were Galicians, and their kings, the Kings of Galicia. That's how they see this. As for the Franks, cf. supra 9.5.

Sources

The Chronicles of Albelda, Rota and 'ad Sebastianus' -their credibility are disputed, and a well respected historian like E. A. Thompsom wrote about them (translating Spanish into English) “they contain a lot of vivid information, which don't deserve any other critic but that derived from their fictitious character” (cf. the Spanish edition of “The Goths in Spain”, p. 10: ISBN 8420613215) are not the only source for the Asturian period. Just in Galicia you can find near a hundred charters from 700 to 900 AD, and half a thousand for the next century (cf. Xaime Varela, Léxico Cotián na Alta Idade Media...: 26-28; ISBN 8484851206) So the mentioned chronicles are not the only source for the period, as it was stated by Xareu. Of course, any document has a purpose, any document is interested and partial, and many documents are forgeries of later times (like many produced by the bishop of Oviedo in C12th, Pelayo), or either they have been seriously modified in the copy process. But even when we look at the genuine ones, they are partial (Asturians and Galicians alike). And Galician ones -even the ones issued by the kings- rarely refers to the kings as kings of Asturias or Galicia, or as king in Oviedo. In fact, usually they simply say: 'the king', 'the prince', 'the lord'... There are even many that don't use any title, but simply the name of the monarch. I will write it again: the kingdom raised in Asturias, but under Alfonso II it was no longer a kingdom of the Asturians -an Asturian empire- but a kingdom of the Christians, and hence the several Frankish references to Alfonso as “King of Galicia and Asturias” (cf. supra 9.4)

King of Galicia

“1.there is NOT A SINGLE law, decree, chronicle, etc. enacted by a King of Galicia.(but we have plenty of them with Asturorum Princeps, or King in Oviedo, for example).” (Xareu bs; 17:43, 6 January 2010; UTC)

Sorry, you are wrong:

• Ego Ansuario uobis domno nostro et serenissimus rex domnus Santius universe urbe Gallecie princeps, necnon et domina nostra, domestica uestra, Goto regina (doc. from Celanova, year 929)
• Rex vero Ramirus, quum esset in pueritia, & modica scientia, coepit Comites Galleciae factis ac verbis contristari. Ipsi quidem Comites catia ferentes, callide adversus eum cogitaverunt, & Regem alium, nomine Veremendum super se erexerunt; qui fuit ordinatus in Sede Sancti Jacobi Idibus Octobris, Aera MXX. Quo autito, Ramirus ex Legione ad Galleciam properavit. Rex vero Veremendus obviam illi exivit in Portella de Arenas, & coeperunt & coeperunt acriter praeliari. Nullus tandem eorum alteri cedens, separati sunt ab invicem. Ramirus vero reversus est Legionem, ibique próprio morbo decedens XVI, regni sui annio vitam finivit. (CHRONICA SILENSIS)
• regnante Veremudo serenissimo principe in foris terra seu in Gallecia dominante. (document from the monastery of Samos, year 988)
• Functus in regno domus Fernandus princeps super omnem Galletiam (document n. 534 of the Tumbo de Celanova, year 1060)
• regnante Adephonso victoriosissimo rege in Toleto, & in Hispania, & Gallecia (doc. from Lugo, year 1088)
• si Regina mater mea thoro viduitatis contenta maneret, totius Gallaeciae Regnum in manibus vestris & patrui mei Vienensis Archiespiscopi eius dominio subiugaretur. Si vero maritale foedus iniret, rediret ad me Regnum Gallaeciae... Tu autem quem ego prae omnibus huiusmodi hominibus amplector & ueneror, utpote Dmn. Meum, patronum meum, qui me fonte baptismatis regenerasti, & post nom longum tempus in Ecclesia S. Iacobi in Regem unxisti. (HISTORIA COMPOSTELLANA, I.108) [“Reverendísimo padre y señor, en modo alguno creo que se oculte a tu santidad que a la muerte de mi padre, el conde Raimundo, el muy noble rey Alfonso, mi abuelo, siendo yo todavía niño, convocó en León a los próceres de toda Galicia y ordenó que éstos me rindieran homenaje y prestaran juramento, y tras recibir el juramento de cada uno de aquéllos, me dio el señorío de toda Galicia. Además, el rey don Alfonso, mi abuelo, puso esta condición, que si la reina, mi madre, se contentara con permanecer en el estado de viudedad, todo el reino de Galicia, en vuestras manos y en las de mi tio el arzobispo de Vienne, quedaría sometido a su dominio; pero si firmara contrato matrimonial, regresaría a mi el reino de Galicia. Esto mi propia madre y todos los próceres de Galicia lo sancionaron con juramento; y me alegro de que tu también, santísimo padre, hubieras intervenido (…) protector mío, que me regeneraste en la fuente del bautismo y no mucho tiempo después me ungiste en la iglesia de Santiago como rey, en quien está echada el ancla de mi confianza, dígnate prestarme ayuda para conseguir mi reino (E. Falke, Hist. Comp., I.108, pág. 255)]
• Adefonsus dei gratia hispaniarum imperator laudat et confirmat. Sanctius filius eius rex Castelle laudat et confirmat. Fernandus filius eius rex Galletie laudat et confirmat (document from Lugo, year 1155)
• Ego Adefonsus Dei gratia rex Legionis et Galletie... SIGNUM ADEFONSI REGIS LEGIONIS ET GALLECIE (Tumbo A de Santiago de Compostela, year 1189);

Etc... Cf. points 10 and 11, supra.

Geography

“Gallaecia was only a geographical description, corresponding to the Roman Province.(conversely nobody claims the former territories of the Tarraconensis for the current Catalonian province of Tarragona). As an example, as the chronicle of Al Maqqari goes(as you´ve guessed, Arab): The Ismaelits, fighting the polytheists and forcing them to emigrate till Ariyula, from the Franks land came, and had conquered Pamplona in Galicia.... This Basque city was not obviously Galician, but IN THE FORMER GALLAECIA.” (Xareu bs; 17:43, 6 January 2010; UTC)

• Pamplona was never in Roman Galicia, but the Arabs assumed all the Christian in the west of Hispania were Galicians. Was Galicia / Gallecia / Gallaecia merely a geographical description? No. For the Arabs it was also cultural / politic, as it was for the Franks. As for locals, Asturians were Asturians, but the Portuguese and Leonese considered themselves Galicians until the C10th and after: during the High Middle Ages, Galicia extended south to the Mondego river, northeast between Eo and Navia, and east to the Cea river: sub aula idem gloriosis martyribus in ciuitate que uoc[i]tatur Legio, territorio Gallicie (Leon, year 874); in hunc locum Calzata, que est sita super ripam fluminis cui nomen est Zeia, in finibus Galleciae (Leon, 905); In loco Calzata que est sita super ripam fluminis cui nomem est Ceia in finibus Gallecie (monastery of Sahagun, 922); Collegio fratrum Sanctorum Facundi & Primitibi in finibus Gallecie super ripam amnes Ceia (monastery of Sahagún, 1060); sub amne Zeja, vocabulo sanctorum Facundi & Primitivi, in finubus Gallecie (monastery of Sahagún, 1068); In deo dei filio sempiternum salutem. Dono atque offero propter remedium anime mee et altario sacro sancti mameti que situm est cenobio subtus monte lauribano in finibus gallecie (monastery of Lorvao, 933); Expulsa itaque de Portugale Maurorum rabie; omnes ultra fluvium Mondego, qui utramque a Gallecia separat provinciam, Fernandus Rex ire cogit. (Chronica Silense, XIIth century); Abjicimus etiam in Gallecía Ecclesias & Dioecese, quos avíos nostros in prima populationé ad ipsa Sede Legionense dederunt , ita & nos confirmamus; id sunt: Vallacarcere, Vallebona, Triacastella, Zerbantes, Nabia cum Deganeis suis , Vitrico , Arborsola , Soorna, Trabersas de Fraxino , Ibias ambas [Ibias], Ausecos [Oscos] & Neiro. (in España Sagrada vol. XXXIX)

• Does this represents a pervivence of the Roman province? No. The political concept of Galicia changed during the Suevi kingdom to comprise lands which had never belonged to Galicia (Coimbra, Viseu, Lamego, Idanha) but to Lusitania: in the councils of Braga it is said “reunited the bishops of the Province of Galicia”, when they were present the bishops of the aforementioned cities: Cum Galliciae provinciae episcopi, tam ex Bracarensi quam ex Lucensi synodo, cum suis metropolitanis, praecepto praefati regis simul in metropolitana Bracarensi ecclesia convenissent, id est Martinus, Nitigisius, Remisol, Andreas, Lucetius, Adoric, Wittimer, Sardinarius, Viator, Anila, Polemius, Mailoc (Acts of the IInd Council of Braga, year 572) The Frankish authors also refers to the Suebi Kingdom as Kingdom of Galicia. Also, Gallaecia ended not in the limits of the Autrigonians, as before, but in the Cea river (cf. the Parrochiale Suevicum). This extension of Galicia into Lusitania was evidenced by pope Inocentius III in 1199, in an sentence over a territorial conflict inter Braga and Santiago de Compostela: quia rex Gallecie, ut ex veteribus constare dicebas historiis, occupaverat de provincia Lusitaniae has quatuor civitates, ad eas regni sui nomen extenderat, ut per quandam equivocacionem totum etiam regnum Gallecie diceretur” (doc. from the Tumbo B of the Cathedral of Santiago, year 1199)

And cf. 9.4 and 9.8, supra.

True!

"The Alfonsine Chronicles state that circa 754 Fruela I fights and defeats the Galicians. What was he doing, fighting his own people?" (Xareu bs; 17:43, 6 January 2010; UTC)

That's true. It took time and efforts to expand the authority of the princes and lords like Froila, Alfonso (who proceeded from eastern Asturias) into Galicia, Portugal, Alaba... Many times they fought in Galicia or in the east... And yet they had to fight also in Asturias -against whom were very literally their own people, that is, their slaves :-) But also one king like Ramiro was made king by the Galicians after he had arranged an army in Lugo and marched into Asturias, defeating the Asturians supporters of the later king. Sorry, the kingdom of Asturias -I got no problem with the name- from the C8th was not a Imperium of the Asturians, even with the king residing in Oviedo.

Other references

“If you have a look at the primary sources, or the studies of serious European Mediaevalists (for example, Alejandro Herculano, Portuguese), you won´t find any base for this fantasy.” (Xareu bs; 17:43, 6 January 2010; UTC)

As for the primary sources, cf. 9, 10, 11 supra, or I suppose any of the works mentioned in the bibliography (especially López Carreira, 2003). As for foreign scholars, I suggest beginning with Bishko 'Spanish and Portuguese Monastic History, 600-1300, (Print edition: Variorum Reprints, 1984) or Fletcher Saint James's Catapul : The Life and Times of Diego Gelmírez of Santiago de Compostela (Print edition: Oxford University Press, 1984). You can find both of them in “libro” (http://libro.uca.edu/).

Asturias

I found that Xareu -I presume he is Asturian- dislikes the treatment of the Asturian period in this article. I'm pretty much sure that it can be enhanced through constructive work and debate, but it will never get better by dire substitution of the whole article, leaving hundreds of years out in the cold. In fact, is this last thing what makes me act. Well, I'm open to constructive debate -only believers think debate is superfluous-. Finally, I wrote points 9, 10 and 11 of this talk page. It would be nice to have some feed-back.

P.D.: I pretended to put back the work in progress of Nuninho, but it will be impossible for me after the double consecutive edition of Xareu. I wonder if somthing like this can happen in any other article of the WP. Froaringus (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Froaringus, what you cannot do is revert this article (I acknowledge that the current version is too poor, but it´s sourced) to a fantastic one. If you add documented sources (which are very scarce, this is true), feel free, but please do not pass what is an historical nonsense as a serious article. The scholar you´ve mentioned, in his book, creates a new theory of his own (I do not know if following a nationalist agenda), but ignoring both Christian and Muslim Chronicles.Perhaps the best way is trying to get to an agreement point by point. The discussion page would be the right place. Regards--Xareu bs (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Xareu, the article version you allege to be "fantastic" and "historical nonsense" is well-sourced. Either version needs a lot of work, but it is not up to you to lay down what is in and out of bounds. Discussion is good, but ultimately some work must be done on the article. Are you going to do some? Will you at least dig up some reliable secondary sources so that others have a lead? Srnec (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Srnec; I´m sorry but I do not agree. A history article must be based on primary sources, not in a contemporary essay ignoring the written accounts. I´m sure that you may find thousands of books stating that the Man has not travelled to the Moon (it´s only an example, I´m not comparing), but those sources wouldn´t be reliable. In this case we would only use the records from the Nasa or the TV images, wouldn´t we?. You may find a critical study of Carreira´s theories, for example, here [2]--Xareu bs (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources (modern historians and archaeologists) are what are needed. This is a matter of policy: Wikipedia:verifiability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Xareu, I begin to believe that you are not interested really on this article, only on removing information that you dislike. Froaringus has written a enormous quantity of information, and while he answered all your questions, your contribution on this article is removing whole information and restoring an old version without references. who are you to decide what is authentic and what is fantasy?. This article is well-sourced and now when you have not more arguments, you bring us a Spanish opinion forum which according you, it´s a critical study of historical theories of one author, what are you thinking about?, you remove repeatedly an article with 90 references, with external links, bibliography, primary sources and cites because you say all this is "fantasy", and now you bring a opinion forum to try to discredit an author who is cited in this article. I prefer not give my opinion about all this, but my vote of course, is restore the article and so, I can continue to work. Thanks again for removing, days and nights of my work.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Nuninho, but Froaringus has not answered any of my questions (in the discussion page), that in my opinion invalidate this THEORY. What references are you citing?. Can you cite me any document or primary source from a King of Galicia except the ones cited in the current version( leaving apart the Suebic kingdom which is a matter of controversy)?. Yes, the forum is Spanish, ok, which is logical considering that is history of territories that nowadays comprise Spain. Honestly I didn´t find anything in English covering this theory but cites to his books. Anyway, if you found any European (not Spanish nor Galician in order to keep a certain degree of neutrality) historian that shares Carreira´s view, I would be grateful to know about it. I´ve cited a Portuguese historian too, for example (for you who speak the language). I think you´d better work nights and days in constrasting information. I only say what the Chronicles (bear in mind that also Moorish) say, I´m not deciding by myself. According to the Chronicles, it´s blatant fantasy. That´s all. If tomorrow it´s found a parchment with a Donation from a King of Galicia (again, but the ones cited), this would change the issue. And as for the Galicia/Gallaecia discussion, please see the Arab view of Pamplona. Is for Mr Carreira Pamplona Galician too?. And, again, why in times of Fruela or Silo the king fought the Galicians, if the Kingdom was of Galicia. That does not make any logic. --Xareu bs (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Xareu, all your questions and arguments have been answered politely point by point by Froaringus , and your only argument is to repeat that there is an author (between more than 30) of nationalist ideology, and which according my information, is Professor in the Spanish Public University. I suppose all the authors cited have their own political ideology, I don´t know the particular ideology of this Proffesor, nor do I care, but I think if your don´t share it, is no reason to discredit and insult him for his alleged political ideology (as you did in previous posts), nor it´s tolerable to discriminate anyone for their religion or ethnicity. As I read on your user page, you define yourself as Asturian and Spanish, I would like to think that this is not related to your constant attacks on this Galician Proffesor, nationalist in your opinion.

Let me tell you one thing, with all my respects, your attitude in this article is regrettable, not only you don´t provide citations nor references, your attitude dedicates only to restore constantly an old version with very lower quality and without appointments, and this is not your first time which you do it, you do it repetitively and it seems that you have no intention of changing. It is really easy to click undo, and delete an entire article as long as this, what is really difficult is to translate, write and discuss (you can see all the work done by Froaringus on this discussion page, by the way, work which you seem avoid). I see, your procedure is eradicating everything which you don´t agree, without discussing anything, and after, hoping nobody revert your changes. It is absolutely intolerable and I personally don´t think you should be who decide that is objective and wich is not objective in this article. I guess your offer to review this article point by point is sentencing, which is objective and not, pursuant to your judgement, of course.

From what I see, you have no intention of working on this article, just of hindering the work workers fellow, one need only compare the work done by people like Froaringus on the discussion page, -which could have increased the quality of article- and your constant erasing data . Of course, my opinion is to return entirely this article, and once it is fully translated, we can decide which parts are in dispute and which are not.--OkleeKa (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, only one more point. In the Chronicles, written under Alfonso III, there is a Visigothic bias in order to justify the Reconquest (it the Kingdom were not succesor of the Visigothic one, the ideology of a Reconquest, in my opinion an ideology arosen in the late decades of the Kingdom of Asturias due to the sourhtern inmigration, would not make any sense. For example it´s stated that Alfonso II restored the Order of the Goths. See: not a single mention of the Suebic people or Kingdom which you´re identifying with the Kindgom of Galicia. Always searching for the legitimity based in Toledo´s Kingdom. --Xareu bs (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Answering

Yes Xareu, Froaringus has answered your questions, but I see you didn´t understand. By the way, you have a lot of information about it in the Library of the Kingdom of Galicia, in the Official and Public web of The Archives of the Kingdom of Galicia] (is it a fantasy too?)

Sorry, but, what documents?. Again, any document stating Kingdom of Galicia?.

• First. I must to remember you, we are speaking about "Kingdom of Galicia", and it´s not the modern Spanish autonomous community (Galicia).

True. But the Kingdom never was called that way,not it was based only in Gallaecia (as an example,Álava, Cantabria, etc. were part of the kingdom since its inception, and were not part of Gallaecia for most of their History. In fact, Cantabria was in the Kingdom well before lands of the former Gallaecia (for example, there was a Muslim Governor in Tuy for some years after Asturias and Cantabria had breaken off ties with Córdoba).

• Second. Since Roman Empire, Galicia (lat.Gallaecia, pt.Galiza, fr.Galice) was a Roman province that occupied all nort-west of Iberia, in this province lived Gallaeci, but also Asturi, Vaccei, Cantabri and a lot of peoples, not just Galicians (Gallaeci, ethnic group). The Kingdom of Galicia in Middle Age inherited his territory and enlarge it, but as in the Roman province, a lot of peoples lived in Galicia (territory), not only Galicians (ethnic group), also Basques (ethnic group), Castilians (ethnic group) and others of course.

Cantabria was not part of Gallaecia for most of the existence of the province. Besides, east Asturias and Cantabria were never part of the supposed Kingdom of Galicia of the Suebic people.

Answering now:

• Xareu said: And, again, why in times of Fruela or Silo the king fought the Galicians, if the Kingdom was of Galicia. That does not make any logic.

Sorry, why do you try to distort text of chronicles?. There is any Chronicle which tells that Silo or Fruela, fought against "Galicians" (ethnic group), chronicles tells other things about Froila (or Fuela) and Silo.

Gallecie populos contra se reuelantes superauit omnemque prouintiam fortiter depredauit (Fruela). to people of Galicia (territory) who revolted against…” where did you read "against Galicians'?.

I do not understand your point. You´re stating exactly the same as me. And I´ve always thought that the people of Galicia (Gallecia, not Gallaecie) were Galicians. And if it´s meant that it was not Galicia, but Gallaecia, again it does not make any sense since you consider that the Kingdom was of Gallaecia. An, why in some sources the Kings called themselves Asturorom Princeps,and never Gallecie?

Populos Gallecie contra se rebellantes in monte Cuperio bello superabit et suo imperio subiugabit (Silo)

Again we found peoples of Galicia (territory)", not Galicians (ethnic group), and not "all" people of Galicia, but only those that decided to revolt against Silo.

I´d like to remember you that Ramiro was supported by Galicians (ethnic group) against Asturians and Basques, and thanks to Galicians (ethnic group) he conquered Oviedo, as you would say, if Ramiro was Asturian it doesn´t make any logic to fight against his own people, nao?. Really, we cannot say that Ramiro was Asturian, Galician (ethnic group), Castilian or Basque, he was just “King of Galicia” (territory).

I´ve never said that the Kings were Asturian (at least in an ethnic sense); in fact, Alfonso I was Cantabrian and Gothic, Alfonso II was half Basque, etc. By the way, the only one (leaving apart the Kings born in Oviedo but with non Asturian ancestors) regarded as Asturian is Silo who is thought to come from the Pravia zone. And Ramiro I never conquered Oviedo. Nepociano´s army left the battlefield near Cornellana without fighting Ramiro.

• Xareu said: If tomorrow it´s found a parchment with a Donation from a King of Galicia (again, but the ones cited), this would change the issue.

You mustn´t wait for tomorrow, although kings prefered use his title according his capital (ovetensis or legionensis), Froaringus gave you a lot of donations with the title King of Galicia, and not only in Suevic period, if you don´t want to see it, I can make nothing.

NO, there is not (but the same kings). And its a blatant lie, for the 700-900 period. King in Oviedo, of the Christians, or Asturorum Princeps were the only titles (or King XX without further remarks).

• Xareu said: And as for the Galicia / Gallaecia discussion, please see the Arab view of Pamplona. Is for Mr Carreira Pamplona Galician too?

Again Froaringus wrote you a good answer Xareu:

Pamplona was regarded as a city in Galicia not only by the Arabs of souther Spain -for the Arabs of souther Spain all the NW of the Iberian Peninsula was known as Ŷillīqiya < Gallaecia, whose inhabitants, the Galicians, were a subgroup of the Franks. Also the French adressed the Northwest of Hispania as Galicia: anno 778 rex Caroulus cum magno exercitu venit in terram Galliciam et adquisivit Pampalonam. (ANNALES PETAVIANI) It's is not that I consider that the Asturians of Asturias or that the Basques and Romans of Pamplona felt Galicians, but they were seen as that by their contemporaries. So, the map can be criticized, of course, but the person who made it has good reasons:

• Roman Gallaecia comprised most of Hispania north of the Duero river: Hidatius (Theodosius natione Hispanus, de provincia Gallaecia, civitate Cauca, a Gratiano augustus appellatur; In Asturicensi urbe Gallaeciae; Theudoricus adversis sibi nuntiis territus, mox post dies paschae, quod fuit quinto kal. Aprilis, de Emerita egreditur, et Gallias repetens partem ex ea quam habebat multitudine variae nationis, cum ducibus suis ad campos Gallaeciae dirigit: qui dolis et perjuriis instructi, sicut eis fuerat imperatum, Asturicam quam jam praedones ipsius sub specie Romanae ordinationis intraverant); Orosius (Numantia autem citerioris Hispaniae, haud procul a Vaccaeis et Cantabris in capite Gallaeciae sita, ultima Celtiberorum fuit.; Cantabri et Astures Gallaeciae prouinciae portio sunt); Isidorus (Item regiones partes sunt provinciarum, quas vulgus conventus vocat, sicut in Phrygia Troia; sicut in Gallicia Cantabria, Asturia. Etymologiarum, XIV, V, 21); Notitia Dignitatum (In provincia Callaecia: Praefectus legionis septimae geminae, Legione.Tribunus cohortis secundae Flaviae Pacatianae, Paetaonio. Tribunus cohortis secundae Gallicae, ad cohortem Gallicam. Tribunus cohortis Lucensis, Luco.Tribunus cohortis Celtiberae, Brigantiae, nunc Iuliobriga.In provincia Tarraconensi: Tribunus cohortis primae Gallicae, Veleia')

• But the Suevi changed it to comprise also the north of Lusitania -as stated by the Councils of Braga-, although they lost all lands east of the Cea river. During the High Middle Ages, Galicia extended south to the Mondego river, north passed the Eo, and east to the Cea river: sub aula idem gloriosis martyribus in ciuitate que uoc[i]tatur Legio, territorio Gallicie (Leon, year 874); in hunc locum Calzata, que est sita super ripam fluminis cui nomen est Zeia, in finibus Galleciae (Leon, 905); In loco Calzata que est sita super ripam fluminis cui nomem est Ceia in finibus Gallecie (Sahagun 922); Collegio fratrum Sanctorum Facundi & Primitibi in finibus Gallecie super ripam amnes Ceia (Sahagún 1060); sub amne Zeja, vocabulo sanctorum Facundi & Primitivi, in finubus Gallecie (Sahagún 1068); In deo dei filio sempiternum salutem. Dono atque offero propter remedium anime mee et altario sacro sancti mameti que situm est cenobio subtus monte lauribano in finibus gallecie (Lorvao, 933); Expulsa itaque de Portugale Maurorum rabie; omnes ultra fluvium Mondego, qui utramque a Gallecia separat provinciam, Fernandus Rex ire cogit. (Chronica Silense, XIIth century); Abjicimus etiam in Gallecía Ecclesias & Dioecese, quos avíos nostros in prima populationé ad ipsa Sede Legionense dederunt , ita & nos confirmamus ; id sunt : Vallacarcere, Vallebona, Triacastella, Zerbantes, Nabia cum Deganeis suis , Vitrico , Arborsola , Soorna, Trabersas de Fraxino , Ibias ambas , Ausecos & Neiro. (in Espanha Sagrada vol. XXXIX--Nuninho Martins (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are stating the same as me?. I don´t understand what´s the heck about. If you say that the Kings were of Gallaecia (and zones never in Gallaecia as Álava or Bardulia), and not Galicia, why are you calling the article Kingdom of Galicia?. There was a real kingdom of Galicia with the Kings cited here (which didn´t include the rest of Gallaecia), so we cannot say the Kingdom of Galicia is the same as the Kingdom of Gallaecia.I´m only signing here, but I´ve tried to answer your points one by one after your statement.--Xareu bs (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong Xareu, Alava or Bardulia was in Galicia (latin:Gallaecia, portuguese:Galiza, français:Galice, etc..), Alava or Bardulia was in Galicia since Roman Empire, specifically in Conventus Cluniensis, I give you references:

• Numantia autem citerioris Hispaniae, haud procul a Vaccaeis et Cantabris in capite Gallaeciae sita, ultima Celtiberorum fuit.. Orosius. (Numantia was in Galicia)

• Item regiones partes sunt provinciarum, quas vulgus conventus vocat, sicut in Phrygia Troia; sicut in Gallicia; Cantabria, Asturia. Isidorus (Cantabria was in Galicia, also Asturia).

• Theodosius natione Spanus de provincia Gallaecia civitate Cauca. (Coca), in Segovia.

Obviously, the name of the territory of the kingdom was Galicia under his latin forms: Gallaecia, Gallicia, Gallezia, Galletia, etc..., if you don´t understand it, it will be very dificult for me explaining you the rest.

You said: There was a real kingdom of Galicia with the Kings cited here (which didn´t include the rest of Gallaecia), so we cannot say the Kingdom of Galicia is the same as the Kingdom of Gallaecia.

As you can see, the kingdom inherited the Roman province territory, Gallaecia is a name in Latin, Galiza is the name in Portuguese, Galice is the name in French, and Galicia is the name in English, and all are for the same territory.

Yes, it is what I was trying to say: if you link the territory of Gallaecia to modern Galici, it´s completely wrong. The word Galicia, now, means the autonomous region, so if you say that the medieval Kingdom was of Galicia, it´s false. The Court for example was never in Galicia. In any case I would admit Gallaecia, not Galicia. Please read my comment about the Suebic Kingdom and bear in mind that in times of Pelayo, Favila and Alfonso I Galicia (in times of the latter the latter only the south) was under Muslim control, so there could not be any Christian Kingdom of Galicia.--Xareu bs (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So, I think you believe that "Portugallia" is not Portugal, or "Castella" is not Castile, they are only latin forms!.

This is another matter, since Castiella was a region of the current Castilla and Portugallia of Portugal, and not the other way down as in Gallaecia case.