Talk:Kingdom of Soissons

Comments

I believe the references to the Vandals in this article are in error; so far as I know, the Vandals never campaigned in Gaul except to raid the southern coastal towns. Certainly, Alaric II, referred to as a "Vandal king" here, was actually a king of the Visigoths, and I would say that is also who they fought in the 463 battle as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.152.9.106 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 July 2005‎ (UTC)

Last Roman enclave within Gaul or simply all of former Roman empire?

I am having a trouble attempting to answer the above question I had in mind. The articles including this and elsewhere mentions Domain of Soissons as being the last Roman enclave within Roman Gaul but it was never made clear if this is also the last Roman enclave of all within former Roman Empire. Is there any other Roman enclaves like this beyond Gaul at that point in the history? Just need to clear that up. Thanks. --Legion 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the last within the territory of the Western Empire, unless your definition includes the Romano-British or that Odoacer was governing Italy for Zeno. Kuralyov 00:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Define Roman? There was a Byzantine enclave in Spain in the 6th century and of course in Italy until the late 11th. Sardinia and Corsica were Byzantine until at least the 8th century. Srnec 04:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But those weren't established until the campaigns of Belisarius and Narses, a century after the overthrow of the Western empire. Kuralyov 15:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But the question concerned the term "Roman" and the Empire was always a unity governed in halves, never two distinct empires. The "fall of the Western Roman Empire" really only refers to the theoretical reunion of the two halves and the rule by barbarians of whatever in the West remained in allegiance to the emperor. Rome never ceased to acknowledge itself as part of the Roman Empire. Not in 476 or at any other date that I am aware (before the modern age). Belisarius and Narses were Romans and the territory they conquered was considered to be part of the Empire by right. They were Roman enclaves. Srnec 17:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Dalmatia also was under Roman control. Why do you say that Soissons was the last Roman enclave? There were about 10 legions in the western part of the empire by 480, and none of them declared secession. By the way, what legions were under command of Syagrius?--Dojarca (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 05 September 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Domain of Soissons → Kingdom of Soissons – It's what more sources use. "Domain" is very rare. An alternative, since the proposed title could refer to a later Merovingian creation, is Roman kingdom of Soissons, which is also in use. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 03:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose while later and non-Roman sources do refer to it as a kingdom, there is a persistent scholarly doubt that it would have been called a kingdom at the time, at least if Syagrius shared the old Roman rejection of the name of "king". "Domain" is a modern term, generally used in modern scholarship, it explicitly avoids that controversy and may therefore be (marginally) better than either "Kingdom" or "Roman Kingdom". Calling it the "Kingdom of Soissons" would also cause (slight) potential confusion with the Merovingian version, which definitely was a kingdom.
  

We aren't using bibliometry to make decisions for us, but it may be relevant that I find 193,000 Google results for "Domain of Soissons" and 103,000 for "Kingdom of Soissons", which would also include the Merovingian creation. "Roman Kingdom of Soissons" brings up 26,000. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Try Google Book and Scholar searches and exclude results derived from Wikipedia. You will see that the term "domain" is very rare, while "(Roman) kingdom" is quite common. We should call it what our most reliable sources call it. Srnec (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment "Domain" is no doubt unsatisfying, but "kingdom" may be even more more problematic; Aegidius was never king but magister militum, and despite Gregory's claim it seems unlikely Syagrius was really Rex Romanorum. One of the most detailed books on the topic in English, Late Roman Warlords, does use the term "kingdom", but with scare quotes, and in a similar fashion A Companion to Late Antiquity says "kingdom or personal fiefdom". The problem with "king" and "kingdom" seems all too often to come in scare quotes, and often it's just a quote of Gregory.Aldux (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Gregory and the Liber historiae Francorum both call Aegidius "king". Penny MacGeorge's essay "Syagrius and the Kingdom of Soissons" in Late Roman Warlords is unabashed in using the term "kingdom" to describe Syagrius' realm. It is Edward James who wants to restrict it and whom she cites using scare quotes around the term. Here is James's paper, in which it is clear that the dominant term for Syagrius' region is "kingdom" (royaume), although James wants to change this. "Domain" is an unfortunate Wikipedian neologism. Srnec (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I was simply observing that even the most favourable sources used caution (if you look at p. 111 "Roman kingdom" does appear in scare quotes; that said, after having taken the book in hand I've got to give you it's even more favourable than I remembered). As for Aegidius, remember we are spoken of sources quite far from the events (and at most it has been quibbled if he could have been king of the Franks, not certainly in a territorial entity). The word "king" (rex) is very charged in Roman tradition, and it is hard to immagine a Roman office-holder, for this the PLRE doesn't even consider it regarding Aegidius (and mentions to refute his Frank kingship).Aldux (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is room to doubt the ascription of royal status to both Syagrius and his realm, but the article needs to be title something—and we can't just make it up. The earliest and most important sources lead us to believe, perhaps mistakenly, that Syagrius was king over a kingdom. That should be our starting point, we can nuance it and critique the primary sources in the article, but we cannot just decide to call it something far more anachronistic (since not one primary sources uses it!). Srnec (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support as much more common, even if it's possibly somewhat inaccurate. "Kingdom of Soissons" Syagrius returns 794 Google Books hits compared to 58 for "Domain of Soissons", many of which are ripoffs of Wikipedia. As noted above, the chapter on Soissons in Penny MacGeorge's Late Roman Warlords, for instance, is titled "Syagrius and the Kingdom of Soissons".[1] If MacGeorge is comfortable using the conventional term, we don't need to use one that's nearly unheard of outside of Wikipedia. I don't see that any other conventional name is nearly so common, besides just "Soissons".--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Passing to Weak Support. For the reasons I've exposed I'm not exactly enthusiast with the idea, but I've got to concede that the current title is untenable, since it's pretty correct to call it a "Wikipedian neologism".Aldux (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

How would you feel about the idea of providing a disambiguation page at Kingdom of Soissons, rather than the current redirect, and a short article on the Merovingian Kingdom of Soissons? Even a stub would be useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need a stub on the Merovingian kingdom. Srnec (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree here, the article Neustria is enough.Aldux (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking we could contact WP:CGR and WP:MA to generate more discussion. Any objections?Aldux (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Srnec (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.