Talk:Julian, Count of Ceuta

Quality of Source
One of the sources dates of Franco's reign and is in spanish, if the source is from spain (wich it probably is) it would likely be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.24.213 (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it's biased because I haven't seen it. The anti-Francoist source which quotes it is definitely biased, by the author's own admission. I wouldn't think that an anti-Francoist would cite a nationalist except to rebut him, so I would assume that Goytiloso considers him a neutral source. But I don't know that, because I haven't actually been able to read them yet. In the meantime, I have created nested quotes to show where Goytiloso cites Valdeavellano (according to the editor who placed the citations there previously). --Jpbrenna (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

La Cava Rumía
http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/quijote/edicion/parte1/parte04/cap41/nota_01.htm#56 and http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/quijote/edicion/parte1/parte04/cap41/nota_com_01.htm#484.56 have interesting notes on the actual meaning of Cava Rumía.

Move notification
There is a move request at Talk:Julian_the_Apostate to move Julian the Apostate to Julian. Since this involves the question whether that Emperor is the primary (much more used than any other) meaning of Julian, the views of watchers of this page would be welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: moved, uncontroversial. Jenks24 (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Julian, count of Ceuta → Julian, Count of Ceuta – The title of the article should have the title capitalized, as per NCROY and like, say, Geoffrey III, Count of Anjou. (And, by the by, this is the second time I couldn't do a simple Move with the Move button. Why have it if it never works and I have to do this tedious request process?) TuckerResearch (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Per nom. (The reason you couldn't do the move yourself is that there's already a page at Julian, Count of Ceuta. Ordinary users are not allowed to stomp on existing pages when doing moves, which is a rule that seems to basically make sense to me – although it would be nice if there was an exception for when the destination page is just a redirect to the page being moved, and has no substantial edit history.) —BarrelProof (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand why it doesn't work, but what I was complaining because, just as you said, "it would be nice if there was an exception for when the destination page is just a redirect to the page being moved." TuckerResearch (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Likewise support. BTW, if the move request is fairly uncontroversial, you can simply paste " " on the redirect you wish to move to, and it will be taken care of. Constantine   ✍  07:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Figure of Legend?
Whoever wants to establish that Julian was a figure of legend as "fact" rather than a theory should first make his case here. 150 years is not a long period for the first documentation of his existence.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This link provides an overview and discussion of historiography of historicity. https://books.google.com.af/books?id=JcI0iI1TiD4C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=count+julian+historicity&source=bl&ots=9tLL4DhGWS&sig=FZs88TUxFRckc8gws73AO-oDGf8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-wMffpZnQAhVBFywKHQYfAjIQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=count%20julian%20historicity&f=false Asilah1981 (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree: absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. It seems that the argument that he never existed is based on the fact that there is no mention of Julian in the Mozarabic Chronicle, but we do have him in an Arabic chronicle. I have requested all of the sources mentioned from a university system. When I have had time to review them, I will add further citations in the article.--Jpbrenna (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julian, Count of Ceuta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050721060321/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/g/gibbon/edward/g43d/chapter51.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/g/gibbon/edward/g43d/chapter51.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"a renegade comes in Byzantine service in Ceuta"
This can hardly be treated as a statement of fact. There is little that all the chronicles agree on save that he was a Christian from North Africa who assisted the Arabs in their invasion of Spain. Of course, all these chronicles were written at a remove of 150 years or more with no known lost antecedents. Srnec (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have re-worked it.--Jpbrenna (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Srnec 150 years is very little time. Pelayo was first chronicled around 150 years and his existence is not questioned. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pelayo's basic existence is not questioned, but parts of the narrative about him are. Most scholars today seem to think that Julian is totally fictitious, with important exceptions. I happen to think that the Julian legend preserves a real person, and that the بـ for يـ error in copying the earliest Arabic source is a plausible one &mdash; I've made it myself. But it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what the sources tell us about the current state of scholarship, and they're telling us that Collins's view is the prevailing one. Even Collins doesn't dismiss the possibility of his existence entirely, but he thinks that the onus of proving it is on the proponents, and that their arguments are weak. --Jpbrenna (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In the case of Julian, there is little that the late sources agree on. As I said, "North African Christian who helped the invaders". It is pretty clear that his role was embellished in legend, whether you take him for real or not. Pelagius is a different case, since the circumstantial evidence supports the basic outline of the later sources. For instance, an inscription by Fafila (his son, according to the chronicles) was preserved until the 20th century. Srnec (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and Collins seems to say that even most scholars who accept Julian's historicity "tended to pass by the rape story" (36). But Grieve argues "“If Arab historians were to invent something out of whole cloth, they might have done a better job of it than the scant mention the violation receives." (236) She has a point: the later sources, Arab and Christian, are much more detailed than the earliest Arab source, which doesn't even give a name for the daughter. Kaegi thinks that the daughter could have been sent as a hostage after an agreement was struck between Roderic and Julian, a plausible scenario. So perhaps we should summarise the late Florinda story, and then note how later embellished versions differ from the earliest extant source, and then state what different scholars have said about it? BTW, in re-reading Collins, I have found that I misquoted: he was talking about a "drunken scribe" possibly mistaking an Urbanus for Julianus in the Mozarabic Chronicle (as other scholars, unnamed by Collins, have suggested); he was not talking about the بـ for يـ confusion in the earliest Arabic manuscript that Jones suggests. I must have misinterpreted my notes when I cited that before. I will correct this presently.--Jpbrenna (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * When younger, I knew people who talked to people who were active adults 150 years ago. It's not that long. The problem is the extreme brevity of surviving accounts. For example, take the question of Julianus vs Urbanus ... both names may refer to the same person. He could have had 2 names (Roman citizens famously always had 3). Or Arab/Berber people may have known him by some name derived from a title or some other attribute, and the Goths by another ... a situation not unknown in those times e.g. Cyrus of Alexandria was known to the Arab armies as Muqawqas, a name some say is derived from Caucasus, his place of origin. Another point of contention among scholars is Julian's position ... whether he was a Byzantine count, or a chief of the Ghumara tribe of Berbers (I think Ibn Khaldun suggested that), or simply a wealthy and influential merchant with trading posts on both sides of the straits of Gibraltar (can't remember who said that, some Arab historian). Once again, none of these are mutually exclusive ... he could have been all three. BTW, I don't like your reliance on Jones' translation of Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam, however. That is more than 150 years old; admittedly there may not be a more recent English translation, but just because this is English wikipedia does not prevent you from going to other languages. You need to find one based on the critical edition by Charles Torrey. The title alone of Jones' translation should tell you ... Dhikr is the equivalent of chapter and is only one part of Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam's work. Even if you don't read Arabic, try to get hold of a copy of Torrey's edition, it is readily available from the many on-demand republishers that advertise their wares these days. His preface (in English) is very informative and directly addresses the question of the reliability of Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam's sources. MisterCDE (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)