Talk:Duchy of Vasconia/Archive 1

Disputed
Although the article has improved since its first inception, and most of its material (barred some unwarranted statements) would suit an article about the Wascones during the Dark Ages, almost nothing points to the existence of an autonomous Duchy of Vasconia prior to 768 (except its appearance as a title of two early VII century Merovingian officers)

The reasons to dispute the factual accuracy of the article are fourfold:
 * The article (and even worse, the map) states that the Duchy of Vasconia extended over both slopes of the Pyrenees.
 * The pre-800 historical  framework of the Duchy isn't accurate
 * The article assumes that it can be assimilated to a (proto) nation-state of the Basques
 * The assumption of certain political status (beside its clear anachronism)

Each of them can be treated separately. The fourth question will not be treated in depth

We are not questioning here if the Wascones existed; that they most probably are the ancestors of current Basques; that they caused -according to the sources- a lot of trouble both to Visigoths and Franks alike; and that a Duchy of Wasconia, which became Gascony existed. The question is when, how and where.

Literature
The existence of a transpyrenean "Duchy of Vasconia" -prior to the Carolingian Era- seems an elusive topic. None of the scholary books I've checked on Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages seems to include a reference to it (neither even R. Collins "Early Medieval Spain" nor Ian Woods "The Merovingian Kingdoms"). A bibliographical search at CINDOC showed also nothing. A survey via Google gives a few unsourced references which in the main follow the treatment in the article and, by extension, the treatment given in the Auñamendi Encyclopedia. Also there were a few genealogical references, especially in French, which sadly, make often use of the Charte D'Alaon.

Thanks to I could ascertain that the whole concept seems to be founded on Bernardo Estornés' book "El Ducado de Vasconia" (Zarautz,Icharopeña,1959). Estornés was the editor of the Auñamendi Encyclopedia and author of the relevant articles there.

While the concept seems popular in certain circles, it is disdained by mainstream scholars, which don't seem even to have bothered to refute it. The longest text i've found a rather critical reference from J. Corcuera (UPV-EHU) in   to historians who support it. As most of the information deals with merovingian data i've used mainly Ian Wood's. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450-751. (London: Longman, 1994) as a reference. The book has plenty of citations of primary sources of which almost all can be found at MGH online. For certain details, i've made use of Larrea, J.J. La Navarre du IVe au XIIe siècle: peuplement et société (De Boeck University, 1998) I've also made sparingly use of two XIX books, Les Merovingiens de Aquitanie, essay historique et critique de la Charte D'Alaon by M. Rabanais (Paris, 1856) and Historie de la Gascogne by J. J. Monzelun (Auch, 1846). The first one is an unmasking of the Charte D'Alaon and provides esential references to primary sources. The second is totally dependant on that document, -thus mostly false- but provides also a host of other curious information. Both are available at books.google.com. I've made also use of a well researched paper about the Basques during this era found at, using R. Collins "The Basques" as guide.

If the scarcity of data in the "Dark Ages" were not enough, the history of the earlier times of the duchies of Gascony and Aquitaine is marred by the (in)famous XVII c. fake known as the Charte D'Alaon, which purports to give a genealogy of the dukes of Gascogne and Aquitanie during the VII and VIII century. Despite its falseness known since the mid XIX c. many of its data still appear even when its bogus status is acknowledged. Many of the corresponding articles of Wikipedia still show its mark as of today. Reading it (available e.g. in Monzelun, in French translation) and Rabanais immediately, saves a lot of time in ascertaining some data.

The bulk of this "disputation" has been written with the article of the Auñamendi Encyclopedia in front (as it is acknowledged that it was the main source for the article), refered as Estornés,  so some of the data below might not appear in the article body as now stands.

There are also minor errors in the article (like confusing the bishop of Elusa -Eauze- with the name of a bishop of Pamplona) not worth following.

The pre-800 historical framework
Estornés list of rulers (not now in the article)  show several deficiences, which undermine the whole reconstruction. A different list, derived from the Charte D'Alaon, is in the article Duke of Gascony The most basic fault both show is that they assign starting and ending ruling dates to make all the rulers cited consecutive. Only the transition Felix to Lupo and Eudes successors are documented, the other changes of rulership aren't documented; and there is no way to prove the list complete.

Wood (pg. 176) points to the fact that northern sources, during the late VIII and IX century, use sometimes the term Wasconia for all Aquitania (i.e everything south of the Loire), usually in regard to Eudes. This, at least, should demand caution on the evidence based on geographical terms
 * Amandus (only Estornés) is an invention from the Charte D'Alaon, and thus he should be scrapped.
 * The main source for Felix and Lupus is the Miracula Martiale and only deals for events around 670/673. A dux Lupus also presided a council of the aquitanian bishops during Childeric's reign (before 675).A frankish duke Lupus is attested in 672/673 operating in Herault against Wamba. It is usually acknowledged  that those three are the same person. There is afterward no trace or mention of autonomous aquitanian lords (basically none in general for Aquitania as a whole) till the appearance of Eudes (around 710).
 * Bertrand and Hubertus (of the Wikipedia list) come from the Charte D'Alaon and should be scrapped. For the case of Hubertus, pls. consult Rabanais
 * There is no trace, nor a hint on the sources about Eudes filiation or rise to power; so both Estornés musing (son of Lupus I) or the Alaon fake (son of Boggis) are plainly unattested.
 * Eudes, Hunald and Waifre, their familiar relationship, their chronology, and their autonomy are well attested.
 * Lupus II as Duke of the Wascones is attested once in Einhard by 768, but the closing date of its government in Estornés (778) is "indebted" to the Charte D'Alaon. Lupus Sanzio is attested in 801, being "loyal like his antecessors" were to Charlemagne. Both are seen acting (and stiled) as de-facto autonomous rulers, but in close, even personal, relationship to the Carolingians. If Lupus Sanzio's second name is a patronimic (as it was customary in the X century and afterwards), he is son of a *Sancho, which could have been an unattested Duke of Wasconia in the interim; although it could be the reverse, Sancho son of Lupus (The original Latin in Ermoldus Nigellus is Lupus sic Sanzius)
 * Only Serenus and Aiginus, -as Merovingian "generals"- and later Lupus (II) and succesors, are called in the sources Dux Wasconiae (or related forms).

Political control
It's interesting to start the discussion with Felix, as the account is rather explicit "He ruled over all the "civitates" till the Pirinees and over the Wascone people". If it is not an anachronic form from the writer, it signals that the organization of the wascones was unlike the rest of Aquitania, i.e. not based on the roman tradition of "civitas" (a territorial unit under the control of a city, with its "comes" and bishop). According to Wood (and taking into account that Lupus ordained the provincial council in name of Childerich) both Felix and Lupus started their career as "warlords" with token submision to the Merovingian kings, although after the dead of Chliderich, Lupus acted even formally as independent. The career of Eudes and his family is absolutely independent from the Pipinide Majors of the Palace. No exact account about his grip over Gascony proper -i.e south of the Garonne- exists. Rabanais even points to the fact that none of the places they are attested acting are located there.

In general, we have no data how the area under control of all of this aquitanian rulers was administered, less even for Wasconia.

The attitude of Lupus (II) in the "Hunold (II) affair" is shown in Einhard as of a minor but independent ruler. In 787, Gascony was spared the redivision of counties at Aquitania, but already from 801, at least the county of Fezensac is attested as carolingian administrative unit. Thus only for this period (from 768 onwards) it can be spoken of an autonomous Wasconia, under frankish suzeranity. Its area was more and more reduced as the IX century advanced with the creation of direct frankish counties (like Bearn)

Extension of the Duchy over the southern slopes of the Pirinees
There is not a single trace in the sources to support this statement, nor even after Roncesvalles and the conquest of Pamplona in 805

The only reference to a Merovingian era action in the south western slopes of the Pirinees is the rather odd Fredegarius 33, who mantains that Sisebut (612-620) conquered "Cantabria" from the Franks, which deserves an independent study in itself, and is previous to all events we are now discussing.

Ethnicity of the rulers.
The only ruler whose ethnicity merits to be under scrutiny is Lupus (I). Estornés gives him the byname "Otxoa" (which in modern Basque means Wolf, as is Latin Lupus) and makes him a "vascon". There are two problems with this. First is that his origins are nowhere explicited in the sources, nor the byname; and second, that acording to Rouche (cited by Wood, pg. 229). Childeric's successor, Theuderic III ( 673, 675-90/1), confiscated his lands in the Orleannais, and donated them to the monastery of Fleury which seems rather to point to an frankish origin. OTOH, while not common, the name Lupus is attested also in environments of hardly vasconic ethnicity

Felix is also a very interesting fellow. His title was "Patricius of Toulouse". Both name and title point to a gallo-roman origin and, most curiously, to a remainder of gone by Roman times.

Although a relationship between names and ethniticity should always be treated with utmost caution; the rest of the names of the list till Lupus (II) are of German or Gallo-Roman fashion. Most of the remainder of the IX century (and other potentates in this area) belong to the well known pool of names (Garcia-Cortazar via Besga ) which (with caution) should be called peri-pirenaican (and most probably point to wasconic influence, at least), so if not authoctonous, were selected from a regional elite pool rather than frankish.

Ethniticity of the state
Wasconia (Gascogne) as a geopolitical term was given to the lands south of the Garonne, i.e. the former roman province of Novempopulania and its heir, the eclesiastical province of Eauze (later Auch). While we can not be sure of earlier times, this was the area Lupus (II) and its heirs controlled (or at least, that was not affected by the carolingian 787 reorganization). Gorrochategui (thru Larrea pg. 126) estimates that the "basque" speaking people (according to the indirect proof of toponims) reached utmost to the Adour. So we are talking of a polity without  clear lingüistic  unity (despite it's name). I haven't found data about the posibility of wascons as "Staatstragendes Volk" (not unlike the Franks). so this possibility remains open

A note I feel obliged
I got intrigued at first with the duchy with a disdaining ("mithical") reference in Jon Jauristi's El Bucle Melancólico, but never got scholary data for or against it (it seems that beyond circles I don't frequent, for scholars is a non-topic). This article, though, giving the Auñamendi reference, has helped me in understanding and further researching the question. I regret to say, that for the time being, I must concur with Mr. Jauristi.

I regret not having been able to consult three major works in this (or closely related) field: R. Collins' The Basques; Armando Besga's work Domuit Vascones and M. Rouche L' Aquitaine des Wisigoths aux Arabes.

Not exactly belonging to this historiographical question, but closely related is Azkarate 2003, a very interesting document relating to  arqueological issues during this ages and the basques.

On Disputed tag removal
Please see Accuracy dispute. There is NO time limit. A further unidirectional removal on the tag, will force me to seek administrator's intervention. Wllacer 10:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried to fix the accuracy problems cited above and removed the tag. Let me outline and explain my edit:
 * I removed the image as disputable and not very precise even if pretty accurate. I hope a better one can be found.
 * I added some references to corroborate some disputable stuff and I added a "citation needed" notice where absolutely necessary.
 * I tightened it up by removing some valuable text that was too broad for the topic at hand.
 * I tried to remove some political implications.
 * I tried to note the accuracy of every historical claim of fact, though I did not know references off hand, I will hopefully add some more later.
 * I did not edit beyond the year 800, b/c the concern cited above was not applicable to years past that.
 * I want the article vetted by Wllacer and Sugaar to assure that it is acceptable. It could use much improvement, but I don't think it needs a disputed tag anymore. Srnec 07:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Pls, give me a couple of days to check things properly. BTW, Srnec, how trustable is Monzelun once free from the Charte D'Alaon? (I didn't follow him beyond c.800. so I have no opinion) Wllacer 08:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of the contents of the Charte beyond its genealogical references to the Merovingians and the later Gascon/Aquitainian dukes. Monlezun, like most every other good source, does follow the false Charte, but I cannot see how it has an adverse effect on anything but his genealogy, which I therefore ignore. Monlezun is the most trusted comprehensive source of which I am aware on the obscure Dark Age history of Gascony. So many other good sources give such limited information. I know the years beyond 800 best, but those are not the years under dispute, so I don't know how much of a help I can be. Srnec 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Article is now in better shape, although still holds uncritically in some paragraphs to the transpirenaican thesis (IMHO) or to unwarranted statements. I hope to put them under scrutiny one by one as time allows. Much of the material now extant and parts already deleted could fit wonderfully into the article Vascones leaving for this article only those relative to the Duchy as a political entity. I'm gathering data but I don't expect to be able to work on it before mid January.Wllacer 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably factual errors
I very much doubt if ever Victoriacum and Pampilona where parts of such a duchy, at least earlier than 711. The first is clearly documented as a defensive foundation of the Visigoths, and the second is also enough attested as a Visigothic stronghold, and AFAIK there are no proofs on the contrary. Those in the article don't hold any critical scrutiny

Victoriacum is not Vitoria (or its neighborhood) ? Seems to run against common consensus, including this very same Wikipedia in Spanish and Latin. The English entry lacks today any reference prior to c. 1100.

To include Biscay and Guipuzcoa is more than hipotetical. The later is not attested from the V century till the XI and i know of no positive linking of Biscay (a little better documented) and this duchy.

I just started working on a document (Llorente, v3. pg 36 passim) from 845 -with additions up to 1040, which gives a genealogy of the real dukes/counts of Gascony (Vasconia in the Latin sources) in the VIII-IX century. It's not as straightforward as I wished, but shows more than one anomaly to the list of rulers here presented, and clearly show that they were Franks of royal blood, although they had his share of "frankish","basque", and "romance" anthroponims Wllacer 09:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Well that's my source says: that the southern Basque Country was dependent of the Duchy of Vasconia in the time of the double Duchy. Somewhere else I also read that the area was sometimes refered to as Gallia Comata (an alternative name for the Duchy of Vasconia). That while Frankish influence at sometimes was very clear, Visigothic influence was always weak, reaching at most as far north as Oligitum (Olite). Goths were basically strong in Rioja, where they actually did some massacres at the beginning of the period (destruction of Amaya, north of Burgos, and Cantabria City, near Logroño - this I found in the Spanish Wikipedia mostly). Another thing is wether the Basque tribes were more or less independent or more or less dependent from their "natural lord", the Duke of Vasconia. But check this map anyhow.
 * 2. Victoriacum is not likely at all to be Vitoria. Vitoria was founded by certain Navarrese king "in a place named Gasteiz" and was indeed first known as "Victoria". Have to check the detail but it has nohing to do. Nobody knows for sure where Victoriacum might have been: it could have been in alava, La Rioja, Navarre or somewhere else. In any case it was short-lived like all Visigothic posessions in Basque land.

(...) tanto Koldo Larrañaga como Agustín Azcárate tienden a creer que la "frontera caliente" entre godos y vascones se hallaría más hacia el Este, en la cuenca media del Ebro y territorio actualmente navarro. La ausencia de restos visigóticos, tanto en Iruña-Veleia como en Vitoria, podría avalar esta hipótesis, aunque la homonimia siga siendo un dato casi determinante para inclinar las preferencias por Araba.
 * (From Auñamendi Ecyclopedia: "Victoriacum")

Dos nombres ha recibido la capital alavesa, Gasteiz y Vitoria. El nombre Gasteiz figura ya en 1025 bajo la grafía Gastehiz en el documento donde se enumeran los pueblos de Álava que pagaban hierro y ganado al monasterio de San Millán de la Cogolla. (...) Como anota A. Irigoyen en su documentadisimo estudio (Vitoria en la Edad Media. Sobre el topónimo Gasteiz..., p. 621) el nombre Gasteiz se documenta en el Fuero dado a Vitoria por Sancho el Sabio de Navarra en 1181: Placuit mihi libenti animo et sana mente populare vos in praefata villa, cui novum nomen imposui, scilicet Victoria, quae antea vocabatur Gasteiz. "Me place benévola y razonadamente poblaros en dicha villa, a la que puse nuevo nombre, a saber, Vitoria, que anteriormente se llamaba Gasteiz." Pero en el mismo fuero de Vitoria se le da el nombre de Nueva Vitoria, lo que parece dar a entender que había también una Vitoria la Vieja, además de Gasteiz. Et ut plenius singula de consuetudine et foro vobis dato in memoriam retineantur: dono vobis ipsam villam que dicitur nouva Victoria cum omnibus terminis suis populatis et heremis quos in presenti possidet, vel aliquando possedit. "Y a fin de retener mejor en la memoria vuestros usos y fuero dado, os hago donación de la villa que se llama Nueva Victoria, con todos sus términos, poblados y yermos, que posee en el presente o poseyó en otro tiempo."
 * (From Auñamendy Enc.: "Gasteiz")
 * So it's not clear at all but the indications strongly point to some Old Victoria (Victoriacum) and this New Victoria (Vitoria-Gasteiz). The fact that the place was never known as Vitoria or anything of the like before Sancho's charter is a very clear sign that Victoriacum was elsewhere. Where? That's still an open question.
 * 3. The Basque coast is a mystery until the 11th century when the domains of Sancho III are already much better defined and go well beyond these modest calculations disputing Burgos to Castile and controling a good deal of Modern Cantabria. While we have no documents that prove that the coast belonged to Vasconia, we know that Alava was Vasconia and therefore we can deduce easily that the coast north of it logically was as well. It was not Asturias in any case and anyhow the western border is dotted indicating uncertainty (what I have attributed to Asturias is equally uncertain, btw: a good guess).

Estas breves noticias de los cronistas latinos nos dicen poca cosa pero de importancia: 1° Vasconia es un entidad que se extiende desde el mediodia de la actual Alava hasta el norte de la actual Zuberoa ya que en 58l la atacan en esos dos puntos para penetrar en su interior. Ambos reyes dicen entrar militarmente en Vasconia. 2° Entre los pueblos del norte, Geta, Dano, Estio, Saxo y Britano, se cita al wasco, lo que deja ver, que, contra lo que algunos historiadores creen, existían de siempre vascos en la antigua tierra aquitana. 3 º La acción Militar simultánea desde las orillas del Adur y las del Ebro, dejan ver que Vasconia constituía un peligro para ambos dominadores, el franco y el godo. 4 º Los vascos, junto con esos otros pueblos, habían sido "domados por el rey Leovigildo y por su padre, según consta". Quiere decir que hubo luchas incesantes y continuas.
 * (From the main source: Auñamendi Enc.: "Ducado de Vasconia")
 * I'm using a secondary/tertiary source. And, according to it, the disintegration of the Duchy took place in the midst of fights against Muslims and Carolingians being constituted first the Banu-Qasi emirate, then the Kingdom of Pamplona, then the short-lived County of Vasconia (Iparralde) and then lost the name of Vasconia in favor of Romance Gascony north of the Adur.
 * Anyhow the discussion on the map should take place in its own talk page, as it doesn't just illustrate this article. It is faithfully based in the one I posted above that illustrates the main article, that serves as main source.
 * I got some more info about Victoriacum, and indeed it seems that the equation with Vitoria is now minoritary. But that leaves only as sure outposts against the "uascones" Pamplona and Olite. The cordon sanitaire against them moves then eastward, not westward. Wllacer 15:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Pamplona was only owned by the Goths in a very brief period. Olite maybe more. But that doesn't mean anything about the border by the West. We know that the Goths estabilished the Duchy of Cantabria (just a stub by the moment: you'll find more info in the Spanish Wikipedia) c. 600. It's generally accepted that this duchy only controlled the lands of the Ebro, La Rioja specially. We have no references to the mountains nor Araba what makes most think that they never really went too far for too long into such dangerous regions that are always (when data is available) mentioned as in posession of their naturals.
 * Auñamendi is coincident that the Gothic attacks must have been focused in what is now Navarre and La Rioja, possibly controlling the Upper Ebro intermitently. Economic reasons and military pragmatism must have been an important part of the Gothic logic. We see parallel patterns in Roman colonization, in (archaeologically documented) Celtic presence and in Castilian ambitions in a later period. Only that Castilians went one step further and decided to secure a harbour for themselves, being the navigation in the Atlantic more important in their period. But apar of that, it's the Ebro valley what all these inruders want specially and what they can control more easily with their foreign armies (because of the nature of terrain). The mountain was generally beyond their ambitions and capabilities. --Sugaar 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Only a brief period ? Why is so important the absence of his bishop in the fifth council of Toledo, then? What would be noteworthy would be its presence in a council
 * Check more (and if possible, with another POV) sources. Wllacer 00:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't if it is important at all. I was following the source article for the redaction of this one and that note was there. You could source your comments by the way, so I can see what are you talking about. --Sugaar 12:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Bishop. What year?
Wllacer: you say that the Bishop of Elusa was accused of pro-Basque activities in 626, yet Auñamendi says clearly that he was accused in 634: En 634 es acusado el obispo de Elusa de haber tomado parte en la sublevación vascona. Which one is the correct date? --Sugaar 12:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know the divergence; but that's the date I could locate in the primary sources. The original quote in Fredegarius (via  puts it at year 43 of Clotaire II (i.e. 626-627). Ian Wood's book about the Merovingians uses also 626 for the year. Fredegarius skips any annotation for 634. But there are also other curious things in it. Elusa/Eauze is in the middle of the Armagnac region, which specialists like Gorrochategi do not suppose ever "Vasconized" at all. And the names of the two involved individuals Palladius (the father) and Sidocus (the Bishop), don't sound like it either. More funny Gascon bishop notices: Acording to Dom Monzelun, a Bishop Licerius from Auch, took part in the Sixth Council of Toledo (638) Wllacer 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Auch or Aux was the capital of the Duchy of Vasconia. Wether or not Basque was still spoken then is less relevant. Basque is not massively spoken in Bilbao or Gasteiz either nowadays, yet these are considered Basque cities. Many people are Basque speakers and bear Romance names (and the opposite is also true). --Sugaar 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By 638 and at least c. 673, Elusa was still metropolitan see of the Novempopulania/Wasconia. But the see (and almost the city) didn't survived the arab atacks after 721. The metropolitan see moved afterwards to Auch. Pre 800, no source gives a political capital to WasconiaWllacer 00:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are maybe right about the lack of knowledge of a political capital (after all it was the High Middle Ages!). Still, again you are discussing the map out of place. Discuss the map in its talk page and the article here, please. --Sugaar 12:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Death of William
Smec: if you're going to challenge the main (and so far only) source, you should at least have another.

According to Auñamendi Encyclopedia, William was captured by the Norsemen in 848 (not 846) but not killed. He ruled until 852, when Sans finally seems to have defeated the Franks.

I think we can complement our diferent sources to improve this and the list of the Dukes but I want to see your sources and if they are similar quality wise, state both opinions, not one. --Sugaar 13:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My source was Monlezun's Histoire de la Gascogne, which is available online at Google Books . The reference is found on page 342, where it is stated that William I died responding to the Vikings in the year 848 (846 was a typo on my behalf, sorry). If you'll look at the article Sancho Sánchez of Gascony, you'll see the other sources I used for putting together the history of the years 846-853. I will add the sources I used in doing the Gascon dukes to this article. I would like you to know I am more than happy to cooperate in elucidating this difficult period of the history of this obscure region. Srnec 05:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Roger Collins' footnote
I'm a little perplexed with it. The same author in his 1995 edition of "Unity in Diversity. Early Medieval Spain (400-1000)" (pg. 246 IIRC) explicitly writes that it is impossible to assert if Pamplona in 811 was put by Louis the Pious under Gascon authority or otherwise. And I see him used here for a very definite position.

To judge by the primary sources. The "bone of contention" is either one of this sentence in the Vita Hludovici (MGH SS in uso S.. vol 64, ed. Ernst Tremp, 1995 pg. 334): Superato autem pene difficili Pyrenearum transitu Alpium, Pampalonam descendit; et in illis quamdiu visum est moratus locis, ea que utilitati tam publice quam private conducerent ordinavit (translated) (After the supression of a rebellion in Dax), He, though, crossed on a very difficult march the Pirinees and went down to Pamplona. He stayed there as long as needed, ordering properly all things, both private and public (Next comes the description of the second Roncesvaux) Or (ibdm. p. 422) the only other reference to Pamplona in that work Eodem anno Eblus atque Asinarius comites trans Pyrenei issui sunt montis altitudinem ire. Qui cum magnis copiis usque ad Pampilonam issent et inde negotio peracto redirent, (...) Asinario vero, tamquam qui eos adfinitate sanguinis tangeret, pepercentum . (Translated) The same year, counts Eblus and Asinarius were ordered to march over the Pyrenees. They came with many troops to Pamplona and returned, once their orders fullfilled (Here comes the description of the third Roncesvaux route 824) Asinarius,though, was spared, as a relative by blood According to the German editor this Asinarius can be Aznar Sanchez count of "citerus Vasconiae", and Eblus an auvergnian nobleman.

Not surprising. Not a single jot about our dukes. Rather more on the line of Collins, 1995 that on the footnote as now exists. Can anybody check what is REALLY written in Collins, 1990 ? Wllacer 16:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wllacer: you probably know but I don't really have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Azernari (Forx in Basque) and Eblus ware already mentioned in the article. Either you are more pedagogic explaining your erudite musings to us the common of mortals or you risk a monologue, really.
 * What exactly are you questioning if anything?
 * On the list of Dukes, we are discussing it in the corresponding article: so far we have Estornés and Monlezun. Estornés is much more complete though they seem to disagree in some dates on the late dukes (specifically Arnold). --Sugaar 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wllacer, I see your point, but I don't see a contradiction. Collins asserted in 1990 that Louis's stay in Pamplona "ordering all things private and public" implies Frankish control of that region. Perhaps the locals liked to dispute that control from time to time, but the control was there. I think it is impossible to ascertain whether or not Louis put Pamplona under Gascon authority or otherwise, but this may just mean that put a Frankish ruler over it. The ethnicity of the Gascon count/duke is not important to the fact that the Gascon count/duchy/march was largely ethnically Basque (Gascon) is some regions and predominantly Frankish/Gallo-Roman in others. The political unit (Vasconia) existed regardless and it seems likely that Pamplona would have been a part of it if it was a part of the Frankish empire at all (which Collins, following the Astronomer, admits it was). I tried to remove all ethnic proto-nation-state implications from the article in order to prevent possible misunderstandings.
 * Sugaar, the map you re-added seems a little imprecise for any time period, though it is more accurate for certain periods of Merovingian and Carolingian rule than others. I don't think it represents Odo's Aquitaine as well as it represents late Charlemange, early Louis the Pious Gascony, which certainly included Pamplona. Even than, I don't think there was a political border with Asturias and the extent of Frankish control was de facto probably slightly smaller at any given moment.
 * As to the sources, we could use more and I will search out some more and even find more citations to corroborate existing info in the current sources. As to the list of dukes, the dates and genealogy of the Merovingian period are very confusing and require the utmost in scholarly research right now. The later dukes are currently in pretty good condition, though the ninth century may need some cross-referencing with different sources. Srnec 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps i'm too focused on an specific problem that I forget explain what's all about ;-) My problem now is that the introduction in the article says


 * It comprised the former Roman province of Novempopulania and, at least in some periods, also the lands south of the Pyrenees centred on Pamplona.[1]


 * Text of the footnote
 * Collins, relying on the Vita Hludowici. Louis the Pious crossed the Pyrenees and "settled matters" in Pamplona, implying that it fell within his realm, obviously within the Gascon march.


 * So the Collins citation is used in support of the "dependence" of Carolingian Pamplona from Gascony/Wasconia. Neither Collins,1995 nor the primary evidence i've dug out so far (what i've cited) support this statement. At any rate, not "Obviously". This is why I asked for an accurate citacion of Collins,1990, to understand this "apparent" change of mind.


 * I'm only now in the middle of research, so it's a little bit dangerous throwing out conclusions. I'm still basically in negative modus (i.e. I'm only able to say, this does not appear in the sources). But, ... You might recall that I've explicitly said that both Lupus (II) and Lupus Sanzio appear on the sources as (semi)independent rulers of Wasconia, but that, by 803 parts of Gascony proper started to be ruled as ordinary frankish counties. Curiously enough, the paragraph of the Astronomer just prior to Louis visit to Pamplona, tells how he put down (very harshly) a rebellion in Dax, i.e. in the hearth of Gascony, and there is no mention of a local duke or count all around; and the history ends with the "customary" disaster at Roncesvaux. I wouldn't say it would had been  a good idea to put Pamplona under Gascon control under this circumstances.
 * Furthermore, common carolingian policy was not to attach former visigothic areas (nor Septimania, neither the Marca Hispanica) into existing frankish administrative units (and by extension no new adquisition); although in this case that could be a circular argument ...
 * If you don't mind, I'll open two new threads for the question of the list of rules and of the extent of Eudes rule, so we can discuss more comfortably. Wllacer 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your problem now. I am going to quote Collins at length:
 * In 816 the Basques 'across the Garonne and around the Pyrenees' rebelled because the new Frankish ruler, the Emperor Louis the Pious (814–840), had removed their Duke Sigiwin 'because of his boundless arrogance and wicked ways.' ... It is probably in the context of the suppression of this revolt that Louis the Pious crossed th ePyrenees and (as the anonymous author of his biography, generally known as 'the Astronomer', puts it) 'settled matters' in Pamplona. This followed on from his receiving of the submission of Basque rebels at Dax. ... the duchy of Gascony or Vasconia Citerior ('hither' Gascony) did not got he way of its southern counterpart, the Basque region across the Pyrenees ... (pp 127-8)


 * Here Collins explicits separates Vasconia Citerior from Vasconia Ulterior politically. However, the relationship he espouses between the rebels of Dax and the "matters" of Pamplon clearly implies that the Emperor was needed in both places at about the same time. Both places being within Basque territory, it follows (to me) that the reason for Louis' presence was the general rebellion and restlessness over the whole province at the removal of Sigiwin. This would imply that both regions were part of one polity under Duke Sigiwin prior to Louis' arrival (though they were perhaps two polities after). This is original research, however, and I am afraid there will be triflingly little that can be added to Wikipedia. In fact, I think that on the strength of sources, more false information could be added to this article than true!
 * If you wish to remove the tranpyrenean references on account of the lack of precise sources for any political entity (smaller than the whole Frankish empire) bestriding both slopes of the Pyrenees, I'm fine with that, though I will continue to research. Srnec 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. We still disagree in its understanding, but not today (it's to late). I have now dating problems (the editor of the Astronomer in the MGH puts the events in 812). Will see what comes out.
 * If nobody objects, I'll probably move the transpirenaican problem somewhere into the body of the article, to be able to expand a little the issue. Something in the line of "due to the lack or ambiguity of the sources, the question if the duchy of Wasconia included, at some time, sizable portions of lands south of the Pyrenees remains controversial". ¿Any ideas for a good redaction?Wllacer 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather than "move" a single sentence, I'd start a section on its own. Rather than just starting sections and making unconnected changes here and there, I'd try to define he issues, set up a reformed layout for the article and proceed with its reform. First discussion and then reformat (and correction of what's needed).
 * Wllacer: lack of primary sources is not a problem if sufficient (quality-wise) secondary sources are coincident. And mostly they are. You are trying to say: I'm right because I have found no evidence... and that's not valid, really. You will be right when you find some good evidence. Till then the secondary sources (Collins, Estornés, etc.) are in command and you are presumably wrong. --Sugaar 23:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you haven't noticed we were discussing two seemingly distinct statements (or our reading of) by Roger Collins, and I just cited the primary evidence he puts in one of them. OTOH i very much doubt, by now, that Estornés and Collins (or almost any scholar for that matter) agree in anything of substanceWllacer 09:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Srnec Do you have more info on this division in Citerior and Ulterior? Montzelun introduces the first (refered as county) opposing it to a list of "derived" counties, but i'm somehow  in a loss putting it on a map Wllacer 09:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Estornés places it in the Northern Basque Country but it would seem soemwhat larger (I infer that south of the Landes and west of Bigorre). The fact that its only clear count, Aznar, conquers Jaca to the Muslims (founding Aragon somehow) may say something about its location. This same Aznar was also the one defeated at Roncevaux-3 (824) and liberated for being a relative of the monarchs of Pamplona and Tudela. His heir re-unifies Vasconia (i.e. Gascony) after defeating the Frankish rival Dukes and Counts of of Bordeaux.
 * My interpretation is (see Talk:Duke of Gascony) is that for some time the "rebel" (independent) Dukes of Vasconia have to submit to the Franks, recieving the title of Counts of Vasconia (instead of the original one of Dukes, transfered to the Counts of Bordeaux) but this "interregnum" is solved by Sans, who re-unifies the Duchy again (but without Pamplona, now an independent kingdom). --Sugaar 14:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Rulers
(Two first contributions come from previous thread. Cut and pasted by Wllacer for clarity)

On the list of Dukes, we are discussing it in the corresponding article: so far we have Estornés and Monlezun. Estornés is much more complete though they seem to disagree in some dates on the late dukes (specifically Arnold). --Sugaar 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As to the sources, we could use more and I will search out some more and even find more citations to corroborate existing info in the current sources. As to the list of dukes, the dates and genealogy of the Merovingian period are very confusing and require the utmost in scholarly research right now. The later dukes are currently in pretty good condition, though the ninth century may need some cross-referencing with different sources. Srnec 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (Still without data after 800, -i'm not that advanced-, and i probably will stop around Louis death).If you look to a previous post of mine, i found serious flaws in both lists. According to primary sources, this is the list of rules which held a rank or title similar to Duke of Gascony (or Aquitania, when appropiate, marked with a cross (+)), and the source. Details for Eudes and family excluded, because of good documentation
 * Bladastes (fl. 581). Dux Vasconiae. (G. Tours History)
 * Genialis (fl. 601). Dux. (Fredegarius)
 * Aighina  (c. 626- c.638) Dux. (Fredegarius)
 * +Felix    (fl. 670). Patricius Tolosae. (Miracula Martialis)
 * +Lupus    (fl. 670). Dux (Miracula Maritalis, Historiae Wamba Regis, Conciliae)
 * +Eudes    (c. 720-735) Princeps Aquitaniae. Dux  (Liber Pontificalis)
 * +Hunald
 * +Waifer
 * Lupus.   (fl. 768). Dux  Wasconum (Einhardi Vita Karoli)
 * Lupus sic Sancio (fl. 800). princeps (Ermoldus Nigellius, Astronomous)


 * I have still unchecked references for following later dukes and counts, so pls. stay tuned


 * Lupus Centulli, dux Wasconum
 * Garsandus, frates Lupus Centulli
 * Sigiwinus, dux Wasconum
 * Garsimirus, princeps Wasconum
 * Azenarius Wasconiae citerioris comes
 * Sancio-Sanci Wasconiae citerioris comes, frates Azenarius

Wllacer 10:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Many of these dukes have articles of their own, which cite sources. Before Genialis, I have never heard Bladastes called "dux Vasconiae". Where precisely in Gregory? I have heard Desiderius (Bladastes' contemporary exactly) referred to as such, but I lack a source. Likewise for a Sereus before Desiderius (possibly his son). One thing that I cannot get straight on the basis of secondary sources, is the separation of the two Aznars! Srnec 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "My" list has (almost) nothing original. It simply contains attested dukes, and -as I prefer- uses only a floruit or circa for the rule dates, when they are not precisely known (only the Eudonians are)
 * Source for Blastades, in this case, is GT. book 6,12 (pg. 283 of the MGH edition). Bladastes vero dux in Vasconiam abiit. Could be an error of mine to include him in the list. Damn polisemy of dux in merovingian sources (general, regional official or "tribal" leader). It could be translated equally correctly as "But Bladastes (as)(general|duke) came into Vasconia", although we know immediately (the part I missed in my notes) that his army was destroyed. I have seen him as an early prototype of Aighina's role, but i might err.
 * There are a lot of references at Gregory of Tours to Desiderius. Thanks. I'll try to check them. But none to Sereus (or Serenus). I'll see what can be made of the Aznars (but i suspect little)--Wllacer 00:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)