Talk:Harla Kingdom

What is this?
There are numerous better attested states in Harla country throughout the period this state supposedly exists. I believe it’s fictitious, like the Kingdom of Makran which was recently removed and I think the same should also happen here. Pruehito (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The references in the article indicate it existed. A sultan of Harla is mentioned in medieval texts. Was it separate or included with the other states? We dont really know yet. I'm sure in pre Islamic times, it had more of an indigenous ethnic character however this began shedding once the Arab cultural incursions occurred. Magherbin (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Kingdom?
Is this article in reference to the recently discovered "Harlaa" site? If so I think that the name of this article should be changed to Harlaa instead of Harla Kingdom to make this more clear. Socialwave597 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No a separate article for that site should be created instead. The kingdom existed according to several historical texts. "The earliest mention of the Harla is in the chronicle of the Ethiopian Emperor ‘Amdä-ṣiyon I in the early to mid-fourteenth century, when the Harla king joined the Muslim forces of Ṣalih against ‘Amdä-ṣiyon I which were defeated near Dawaro." . Magherbin (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Magherbin The chronicles of Amde Siyon mentions a "King of Harla", but it also mentions a "King of Hubat" as well. Yet on this article, it mentions that Hubat was likely the capital of this kingdom. It also mentions a "King of Zeila" and a "king of Dawaro", but these "kingdoms" don't have their own article either. Searching for Harla Kingdom on google scholar and books yields close to nothing except for some WP:MAF sources, and virtually all the sources cited in this article refer to the archeological sites of Harlaa or Ganda Harla, but no Kingdom of Harla. I believe that this kingdom/polity (if it even existed) lacks WP:SIGCOV. Socialwave597 (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hubat is Harla according to Mohammed Hassen as well as Lapiso during the Adal Sultanate it was headquarters of the Harla perhaps not during Amda Seyon, as I explained on the battle of Das article, the state of Gidaya was a Harla state as well as Hargaya just because its denoted by their sub clans doesnt mean they werent Harla. When multiple references state Harla and Hubat were the same the chronicle of Amda Seyon is obsolete. The article doesnt state the capital of Harla is Hubat btw its just a possibility not confirmed and it was noted on the article. This is the view of archaeologist Timothy Insoll see . The other states not having their own articles is irrelevant. Zeila has dual meanings we dont even know yet what the king of Zeila is referring to exactly. The references link the ruins to the Harla state thats why the sources indicate that, if they didnt connect it to Harla sultanate or kingdom then the content wouldnt be added here. This includes other researchers like Dominico who even states that the ruined towns were the Harla state and it collapsed leading to Harar city state being its successor. A merger would be problematic with Adal Sultanate since the state existed before that entity, it was definitely part of the coalition of Salih as Encyclopaedia Aethiopica mentions it see . Amelie Chekroun even states thirteenth century geographer Ibn Sa'id al-Maghribi mentions the country of Harla and al-Mufaddal ibn Abi al-Fada'il in the fourteenth century says they were forced to pay tribute to Abyssinians see p.197 . Kingdom is just a term I happen to use that denoted this state, but its clear it existed since its mentioned by this medieval historians alongside Kingdom of Damot otherwise a non state wouldnt have to pay tribute. al-Muffadal seems to only mention the Damot and Harla not Hubat see the 2nd source by Aethiopica . Damot has an article hence Harla was not comparable to the Dawaro and the other states you mentioned. It was a prominent kingdom. Let me also add that the Amda Seyon chronicle is not believed to be written during the time period of that emperor's reign hence not as credible, I would take al-Mufaddal's opinion over that chronicle. Most commentators believe the chronicle was written during the fifteenth century and is probably not even referring to Amda Seyon's conflict itself see Amelie Chekroun p.26 . Magherbin (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)