Talk:Kingdom of Asturias

Recent issues
Is it correct to say that it was an indigenous rebellion of Astur or Cantabri peoples? The name Alfonso is Gothic, as are names like Bermudo, Favila, and Fruela. It seems that the Hispano-Roman people may have rebelled under the same old banner of the Visigothic nobility as they had been subject to for hundreds of years. Srnec 17:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This month has ended the second campaign of the archaeological dig of La Carisa, Lena. This site (in a mountain pass) has remnants of military camps of two different periods: the first goes back to the Roman conquest times, and shows that Astures had a bigger organization and coordination than previously thought.It is well dated due to the coins found. The second is from centuries VII or VIII (according to C-14 findings). It is, following scholars, whether the rest of a fortress to protect Asturias (and astures) against Wamba´s Visigoths, or the first defences against Moors (well before Covadonga). Anyway, this remnants have proven to be of the Astures type rather than the Goth.--Xareu bs 06:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This article follows the Castilian/Spanish romantic nationalist historiography, created in the second half of the nineteenth, no serious historical criteria, and not corresponds to the original sources of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.194.92 (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The Arabic, Frankish, Scandinavian, Norman or Carolingian documents define the whole Christian territory of the Peninsula like Gallaecia in opposition to the Muslim kingdom of Spania that occupies the center and south of Iberian Peninsula, as reflected in the maps of the time. There has never been a kingdom called of Asturias. Cossue (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Asturias is also a predecessor of Portugal
Asturias is also a predecessor of Portugal, for that reason I'm adding the History of Portugal template and relevant categories. The Ogre 17:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC) dis is garbaaaaaaage

Two strange sections
Can someone fix the "Christian spirituality: Milleniarism and Jacobean cult" section and the "Among the mists of myth..." sections? They're empty --AW 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Christians are the best

Ready section: Christian spirituality: Milleniarism and Jacobean cult
I have translated the section "Christian spirituality: Milleniarism and Jacobean cult". As my English is too poor, I would be grateful if someone could correct my mistakes, and moreover, improve the style of redaction in order to make it pleasant to English-speaking readers.

Fmercury1980 17:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at this when I get a little more time. Thanks for translating all of this! Hiberniantears 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Question: am i annoying you allll

Images
I am preparing to do some copyediting, and for the meantime am removing some images from the religion section as they are not really do not add much to the article... Perhaps one or two of them will be sufficient. Rather than get rid of them, I am placing them here until I finish the copy edit, at which point we can look at what fits. The images are:



Thanks! Hiberniantears 13:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC) if i am to bad for you losers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:407:C601:4870:C440:740F:74A4:A82F (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Mythology
That section looks like a big problem. First, why are there pictures of Germany and Scotland? (And when did get buried in my ancestral homeland, I thought he was buried on an island of apples, Avalon). This discussion of related myths should be contained in the King Under the Mountain article, simply stating Fruela is such a person and perhaps a related geographical feature should be enough. The whole tone seems very unprofessional for example "Moreover, the Covadonga area is plenty of astonishing stories, like the one which states that -over the place where today Enol and Ercina lakes are situated- there was once a shepherd village that was visited by Hail Mary,". State the stories, don't describe them as astonishing, mythological stories are very commonly, otherwise they would be real stories. And I think Hail Mary is a prayer, not a person. Calling her simply the Virgin later, without giving her proper full name, the Virgin Mary, is slightly confusing, consistancy is good. Just some stuff to consider for your finished product after translation. Anyone who suggests to me to be bold should be aware, I'm not bold and my caring of this subjext ends here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.155.35 (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the tone of that section sounds unprofessional because English is not my mother tongue. If you want to move some of the contents of the section to the article "King under the mountain", I have no problem. There are many stories related to King Arthur: One of them tells he was brought in Avalon, but another legends (who were collected by Sir Walter Scott) state that he still lives under the Eildon Hills (SW Scotland). Fmercury1980 13:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Incompatibility
I've detected a possible error in section "Legado", in article es:Reino de Asturias, where it says:
 * En el primer parlamento de la historia de Europa[42], las Cortes de León de 1192

In es:Cortes de León de 1188, it states:
 * En estas primeras cortes se incorporan representantes del estamento popular, los ciudadanos. Dicho modelo se incorporará más tarde en Castilla y Cataluña, y seguidamente al resto de Europa.

Which suggests these were the first ones. Can you please help in determining where is this is an error or a misinterpretation? Please reply at es:Discusión:Reino de Asturias. Nuno Tavares 21:12 10 feb 2008 (UTC)

Flag and Coat of Arms
Those flag and Coat of arms aren't right. The only thing known right now about Asturian Kingdom's symbols is that the Cruz de la Victoria (Victory Cross), was the Kingdom's symbol, but if you read the chronicles from the Kingdom you'll never find anythig about a flag and a Coat of Arms, with one exeption, in one battle leaded by Ramiro I of Asturias, and the flag was white with a red cross, like the English flag, but with the right side in angle. in fact, the person that made the flag and coat of arms that you show is from Valencia and was just he who decided that color. The first Asturian Official flag ever known is in 25th May 1808, with the Asturian Soberany Declaration, and the flag was like the present one (blue and the yellow cross) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasturianu06 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Drought and famine in the valley of river Duero
Hi, I would like to ask you if you know something about drought and famine in the valley of river Duero in 751 – 756. These events were possible reasons why Muslims left this territory. I have got only one source about this fact. Can you help me? Thank you, Niccolo 88.102.231.207 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation of "Evolución Histórica"
I translated several paragraphs of the Spanish article's section titled "Evolución Histórica". I intend to translate the five subsections in the coming weeks. I merged most of the passages about Pelayo and the Astur revolt into the new translated paragraphs. I deleted a couple of sentences to avoid repetition. Trsg (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Arms and the Flag of the Kingdom of Asturias (Sources)


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

Jovellanos y el escudo de Asturias (con un breve apunte astorgano) Autor: Juan José Sánchez Badiola /Jovellanos and the arms of Asturias by Juan Jose Sanchez Badiola.



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.

This is the present Coat of Asturias Law:


 * 

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.


 * For these reasons I recomended to deleted File:Flag of the Kingdom of Asturias.svg, File:Hocsigno.JPG and File:Escudo del Reino de Asturias (Modelo de la Bandera).svg

I recomended as Kingdom of Asturias symbol if it would be necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.79.192.228 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC) --Proof02 (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Beatus
A large section of the article Beatus de Liébana "History of the Kingdom of Asturias" may be more relevant here.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Preheraldic Emblem
I put the image of the Asturian Cross used as preheraldic emblem. The Kingdom didn't have a coat of arms and a flag excep the royal ensign of King Ramiro. I need a hand to put the caption Preheraldic emblem or Emblem of the Kingdom of Asturias because it isn't a Coat of arms, a heraldic emblem. Thanks you.

I'm sorry for my English --83.54.158.147 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits/translation in recognition of Asturias section
(From User_talk:Iñaki_LL)

Hi thanks for looking over my changes, you're obviously an SME here. I'm confused by your mention of source text and "English" version. Also what ambiguity do you feel was added by my changes?

In the first paragraph I intended to address the weasel word over recognition by the pope (my source makes no mention of papal recognition of the kingdom of asturias but does mention that the pope leo III specifically legitimised the remains of st james. Your reversion of the second paragraph also makes/made my third paragraph redundant, yet I feel my paragraph is more informative. Vynwood (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Vynwood, yes I have edited significant portions of other articles too related to this period. The recognition of Gallaecia (i.e. Asturias) as independent from Hispania was made in the critical years of 785-805 approx. during the Adoptionist controversy (main secondary source: Roger Collins) in order to separate it from Toledo and bring it to the Carolingian (Roman) area of influence. Correct me but I doubt that any acknowledgement by the Cordovan emirate of an independent Asturian realm existed before approx. 794 (Leo III's letter acknowledging it), probably just a collection of principalities. So no recognition nor in Hispania neither in Europe before roughly that date. If later Asturian accounts are to be accepted, I urge you to say who mentions it.
 * Carolingian documents talk of Alfonso II as Charlemagne's man (lieutenant, suzerain to Charlemagne, that is how his envoys presented him in Toulouse or elsewhere).
 * St.James bones are proved to be a fabrication (the very bones found seem to belong to more than one person), and the very name of it Compostella refers more probably to small burial site (compositus+ella), despite all the popular and propaganda accounts. If the source cited tells otherwise, so be it according to that source, pretty bewildering, but sometimes narrative is larger than facts, so. Narrative and fact should be separated. Correct me here also, but I do not think the pope Leo III gave credit to the alleged remains of Saint James, and international flow of peregrines did not start until the late 11th century at the earliest.
 * Give another try to the paragraphs in question and I may go with it. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how my edits disagreed with this. If Leo III had a letter acknowledging an independant asturian realm, then that should be sourced and referenced. My |my source says Leo III authenticated the bones of St James on page 58 (shown in that preview) but of course if they were later proved a fabrication then that should be mentioned (as is later in the article/other articles, maybe those mentions should be consolidated?). Definitely agree with separating narrative and facts, but i often feel the narrative is so fascinating it should be mentioned regardless (obviously adding whether the facts agree or not though!) in St James Compostela at the very least, the reason for the creation of the shrine was the discovery of the remains and the matter of their fabrication is also a more recent matterVynwood (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * References should be just about on every information according to the WP policies, that is desirable. On the ground, that does not always happen, and certainly it does not happen in this article or section either. Fletcher pp. 59 and 66 gives an excellent comprehensive approach on the historic circumstances devoid of later narrative and accounts. Also Collins, R. in Early Medieval Spain. I will add that to the section when I have time. In the midst of the Adoptionist controversy, Pope Leo III, in a tandem with Charlemagne, recognized for the first time a Gallaecia (vs Hispania), i.e. a separate jurisdiction from that of Toledo, that is, another political entity in real terms. I could see to a valid reference for that later.
 * My ambiguity claim is about the international flow of pilgrims, that does not belong to the Asturian period, but to a later period and different circumstances. Anyway, adding detail and integrating info should do. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * O, "authenticating" seems too big a word to me (no forensic research at the time). What they did basically is attest to the popularity of a saint patron supporting a certain lord or king, who in turn upheld the authority of the pope of Rome in the area. (See also Collins, R. Early Medieval Spain). Iñaki LL (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * yes the mention of pilgrims wasn't mine, i think it predates my edits. by authentication (the wording my source specifically uses) i just took that as "declared to be authentic" which was the chronistic equivalent, perhaps that would be a better wording? i've done a redraft here with comments, feel free to edit it (oh also do you have a source contradicting the etymology of campus stela vs compositus ella? not sure if it's worth including that at all though)Vynwood (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kingdom of Asturias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140202153736/http://www.comarcavaqueira.com/scripts/museoprerromanico.asp to http://www.comarcavaqueira.com/scripts/museoprerromanico.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingdom of Galicia
All the original sources of the time (both Christian and Muslim) report of the Kingdom of Galicia. Indeed, "Kingdom of Asturias" was a term invented later by the Spanish historiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.15.232.101 (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. However, there is an Asturian nucleus and a later expansion to the west, usually explained as an expansion to (modern day) Galicia (circa AD 750-770). See Roger Collins bibliography. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Galicians, taking advantage of the civil war between Muslims in half of the 8th century, fought against Islam and took over the county of Asturias." Cossue (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One might equally argue that those were defensive structures built by the Suebic Kingdom of Gallaecia, who was formed and well-documented some two hundred years ago and had actually an ongoing quarrel with the Visigothic kings of Hispania. Truth be said, the name «Kingdom of Asturias» doesn't appear anywhere in period writtings, particularly not in the Chronica Albeldense which is credited as the primary source for the origins of the kingdom. On the other hand, the words «Kingdom of Galicia» (including Asturias within) and variants are all over the place for over a thousand years (muslim chronicles, european maps, rolls of arms, etc). --Gatonegro (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I should think that is true, I do not have the details. However, there is a problem with historiography, since most sources call it "Kingdom of Asturias" and WP is based on them. I think for a start a section on the name could be added. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

All about the Kingdom of Galicia before 10th century are lies, it's all regionalist propaganda, they try to legitimate their retarded ideology changing the History. Also Galician wikipedia has 0 neutrality. He has no sources, he's spamming all this shit across all wikipedias in differents languages. I think he must be banned and his spam delete.
 * Problem is, this article is being translated from es.wiki. At one point, it was a featured article (approved in 2007) until I had it revalidated and it lost its distinction due to lack of refs. It sorely needs them. --Maragm (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources is indeed the name of the game here. I am leaving here some books and articles to begin working from which explore how the 'period' sources call the nort-western christian kingdom in the Iberian Peninsula:


 * Some period sources:
 * Pope Urban II writes his letters to Regi Ildefonso Gallitia, not Asturica (that's the so-called «Emperor» Alphonsus VI).
 * Ulv Galiciefarer raids Galicia, not Asturias, in the XI century, and as such is recorded in danish sagas.
 * Alphonsus IX, in the XIII century, calls himself «King of Leon and Galicia», but never «Asturias». For example, in |a letter from 1219.
 * |Segar's Roll of Arms presents the main kingdoms of Christendom (and then some) in the late XIII century. You can see there clearly Portugal, Aragon, England, France, Hispania (Castile) and Galicia, among others, but not Asturias anywhere. This was copied in the XVI century several times and none of the copyists saw fit to alter those facts.
 * The story of Pontus and Sidonia, written in the XIV century by breton noblemen, talks about the Kingdom of Galicia, not Asturias.
 * There is an awful lot of period maps where the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula is labelled some variation of «Galicia», and the rest is «Hispania». Sometimes (as time develops) other names appear too (Portugal, Castile, etc), but I believe I saw only once a reference to «Asturias» in one such period map. Sadly it is a bit cumbersome to reference a lot of maps here, but as unprofessional as it is, |this Youtube video does cite its sources for each image.


 * Some modern sources:
 * Colin McEvedy's The Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, pag. 47, names the region «Kingdom of Galicia».
 * The name of the western christian kingdom (in portuguese), |an article in the weekly magazine Sermos Galiza. This is a nice compilation of the many sources documenting the proper name through all of the middle ages.
 * Yilliquiya or Galisiya: the kingdom of Galicia in arab chronicles (in galician) is |another article exploring how the kingdom was called by the muslim chroniclers.
 * A memoria da nación: O reino de Gallaecia (in galician) is a nice essay by Camilo Nogueira on the medieval identity of Galicia (and, by opposition, of the lack of an Asturian identity at the time). ISBN: 978-8483027639
 * O reino medieval Galicia, by historian and professor Anselmo Lopes Carreira, ISBN 978-8483412930, has a whealth of information on the topic.
 * Arredor da conformacion do reino de Galicia (711-910) (in galician) is another view on the matter of the name of the kingdom / territory. ISBN 978-8495622785
 * Falsificaciones históricas: el Reino de Asturias (in spanish) is a |well-presented essay specifically on the matter of how and when the Kingdom of Asturias was created, and for which reasons. Sources are discussed in the process.


 * ... and basically, most of the |sources in the portuguese language Wikipedia on the Kingdom of Galicia document, from the V to the XV centuries (just restricting ourselves to the consensus «middle ages») refer once and again the same idea.
 * So, a constructive proposal: I would say at the very least a line needs to be added at the heading of the article stating the name «Kingdom of Asturias» is a modern construct, and that it was named differently in period sources. Or, we could create a «Critique» or «Controversy» section where references to all these arguments are provided. —Gatonegro (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Bad Latin
The Latin name seems wrong. If it was supposed to mean "kingdom of the Asturēs", it should be Regnum Asturum. As it is now, Regnum Asturorum, it means "kingdom of the Asturī", but that wasn't the name of the people who had once lived there, was it? So I'm wondering, are there actually occurrences of Asturorum in documents from the period, or was this just put in mistakenly? 69.120.91.171 (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)