Talk:Umayyad invasion of Gaul

On the Vascones
Hi there, there is no point on insisting on the Vascones/Wascones as an ethereal people, rendered as "Gascons" in traditional French and English historiography, for its identification with the later geographic domain Gascony. The ethnic identification of Wascones is Basque, whether it is in its extended or restricted concept (group of peoples akin to the Basques, or forerunners of the Basques of today). Insisting on denial goes nowhere. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! Using Vascones as a synonym for the modern Basque people is an ugly anachronism. Although the two concepts are related, they are as different as the concepts of "Franks" and "French" or "Belgae" and "Belgians". This addition on the infobox is misleading and, to be honnest, not really necessary... Blaue Max (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all, it's clarifying really. For too long, ethereal concepts such as "Gascons" have impregnated historic accounts, they are basically Basques of the 8th century. This is asserted by place-names and anthroponimics. Frank is a very specific ethnic category of that period I'm afraid (Salians and Ripuarians), nothing to do with the Aquitanians or the Gascon Basques, and quite different from (but related to) the contemporary concept of France and French. Basques is today and it was back then an ethnic category with a historic continuity, with the difference being the territorial retreat gone through the ages. Saxons of today (basically Germans of present-day Saxony) trace back their ancestry to the Saxons of that period, the same goes for Frisians. A twisted logic does not apply. So let if flow, and I urge to address other bigger problems of this article, like its initially overdone or artificial dualism (Muslims/Christians), including the inaccurate title of the article, or the use of religious categories for what it is basically territorial expansion and worldly interests in a series of clashes involving many actors. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The links between the Vascones and the Basque are not as simple as you implied ("basically Basques of the 8th c."), this is mythology, not history.
 * The term "Basque" appeared in the 19th c. and has nothing to do in an article about the 8th c., this is an anachronism.
 * Your very interesting theories about the origins of the Basques could be developped (if sourced) in a related article, but in this article it is totaly irrelevant.
 * Irrelevance, mythology and anachronism don't belong to an encyclopedic article. Blaue Max (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Beg you pardon? ... Breaking news, the Basques exist even before the Romans and Celts! I am sorry you were misled by someone to think the term Basque appeared in the 19th century, sadly that is the only myth here. Even just talking about the term, that is just utter nonsense, not to mention that the Basques do not call them "Basque" but euskaldun (attested 8th century). The Greeks were the Greeks before the Roman Empire and continue to be Greeks, but they were different Greeks, right? There is no doubt though that they were Greeks.
 * At this point I am not going to discuss historic stuff like that, for the Basques check Archibald Lewis, Roger Collins, William A. Douglass for English language literature, there are other very interesting authors in Spanish and Basque alike to broaden the scope of your knowledge. If your are not happy, go to History of the Basque people, Duchy of Gascony, Basque people, Basque Country (greater region), Basque language, Novempopulania, Vascones, and other articles. You may want to defend your theory that the were no Basques until the 19th century, or that Basques in the 8th century is mythology. There are other anachronistic stuff to deal with in this article, especially related to dualism (the first time I saw this article, to be honest the account of events looked much like a characterization of the Wicked vs the Righteous of the Pastoral (theatre of Soule). Fortunately it is getting more comprehensive and rigorous, feel free to add accuracy, that is welcome. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The term Basque appeared in the 19th c. in the English language, the only historically attested term is Vascones. Pretending that pagan tribes of the 8th c. and modern people are a single people is pure nationalistic mythology. I've seen it before with Belgae/Belgians and Hebrew/Israelis on Wikipedia, but we're here to do history not mythology. Wikipedia is not a source and other articles are probably filled with such myths. It's not because there are other problems in the article that we shouldn't deal with your inaccurate addition. As it is dubious and irrelevant in the context of this article , it should be removed. Blaue Max (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, what is really a crumbling mythology is that of the great nationalisms like the French, or the Spanish, to cite just two, and their messianic / teleological (preconceived) views. They do no good at all to a good quality wikipedia, readers deserve better. (Just take a look at medieval Spanish history, its miraculous Santiagos, never happening Battles of Clavijos, or the Battle of Roncevaux, and other narrated in-congruent events)
 * However, it is not my goal to dwell on these matters, I came to this article to give accuracy to a vague hotch-potch on the infobox based on dualism. At this point it is just denial you are claiming on the Basques sorry, the Basques are widely recognised as the oldest people in Europe, it is a problem of yours if you do not accept that, so I urge you not to bring your prejudices to the WP. The above articles are based on sourced information, go there and take a look. What you are claiming is a simple nominalism, whether they were called Basques or Biscaynes (or Vascones in Latin, in a wide sense) is totally irrelevant, many peoples of Europe have been called in many ways in other languages, that does not determine the existence of a certain people. As I explained above, the Greeks were in Roman times different Greeks, but there is a clear continuity. Well, the same applies to the Basques. Get over it, add detail, and not confusion, this article needs further good contributions. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A very interesing debate about nationalisms, but totaly irrelevant. The historically attested term is Vascones, adding "Basque" in brackets is misleading and should be removed. Blaue Max (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (...) It's not about what names primary sources record! If we were to follow exactly what they say, be sure that all medieval related encyclopedias and the WP would be a total mess..., starting with the names of medieval personalities and figures, fraught with errors of an interpretive, spelling and orthographic nature, e.g. the Basque names that the Franks could not understand at all (if they were not translated into Latin, the status language, like Lupus, etc.). Actually, the name Gascon for this context is a later, English/French language interpretation of the Latin word Vascones according to the reality of the Late Middle Ages or Renaissance. Vascones of the 15th century are not those of the 8th c. Vascones is the word to call all Basque language (-related) peoples as of 6-7th centuries. However, for further details and nuances go to Roger Collins for a start. I keep Gascons to just find a compromise with traditional historiography, in fact here we are talking of Basques probably hailing from present-day Gascony, but their exact place of origin is a guess (to the south of the Garonne probably, but not even for sure). Iñaki LL (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Titles
The titles Umayyad conquest of Hispania and Umayyad invasion of Gaul seem less than ideal because the geographical frontier (Hispania–Gaul) is less salient than the political one (Visigothic–Frankish). That is, the invasion of "Gaul" started when the Umayyad armies entered the northernmost Visigothic province (Narbonensis), but it makes more sense to include that in the same article as the conquest of the rest of the kingdom. Umayyad conquest of the Visigothic Kingdom and Umayyad invasion of Francia would be better. Srnec (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The Roman domains of Hispania and Gaul as geographic areas seem to me much more straightforward and objective than Visigothic Kingdom and Francia. The presence of the Visigothic Kingdom in the present-day Basque area (Navarre, Álava and other bordering zones) is only limited, but Umayyad invasion affected them, although this can be a matter of nuance. Things are somewhat worse to the north of the Pyrenees.
 * For a start, there is no Francia to the north of the Pyrenees, despite the EN WP article; Francia comprises Neustria, Austrasia and probably Burgundy, that is all. The attempts to extend Francia to the Pyrenees seems to me more of a later ideological elaboration of nationalistic French historiography than the real thing on the ground. Contemporary sources are clear in referring to Francia as the area to the north of the Loire River.


 * Secondly, while the title is convenient, it is also misleading. i.e. there is no invasion of Gaul, or not all of it. There is an occupation of a tip of it, the Visigothic Gaul, and a number of raids to the north, including an attempt to take over Aquitaine in 721 and a major expedition against Odo's Basque-Aquitanians, finally cut short in Poitiers (732, or 733) by Charles ("Martel") and Odo himself. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The objectivity of Hispania and Gaul is not in question, but the relevance. The Umayyad armies did not stop at the Pyrenees or even pause. They conquered the whole Visigothic kingdom, its Gallic province included. So to which article does that event belong? The point is that the straightforward and objective geographic division wasn't a political division and does not appear to have had relevance to the conquerors. You are right about the contemporary meaning of Francia, but scholars use it more broadly as a shorthand for the whole regnum Francorum, which I suppose is the justification for the name of the article (although I myself have argued for a different title). I would not be opposed to renaming this article. Srnec (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , if we change these names, then many things need to be changed, since we will not be sticking to geographic concepts. The Visigothic Kingdom stretched up to the Rhone River, which includes a conquest taking place at least up to 725 (Montepellier, Carcassone; off the top of my head). That chapter should then be included in the article Conquest of the Visigothic Kingdom. Forget about conquests of Gaul or anything the like, just Septimania, and a stretch of land in Provence, to account for the war events taking place in the 730s, and beyond, especially 759, when the Andalusis were defeated.
 * An article on this presence to the north of the Pyrenees may be called "Umayyad presence/inroads in Gaul". Then we would be overlapping with the Visigothic Kingdom article for the region of Septimania, which lies (as attested in the documents of the period) in Gaul. Francia is out of question as far as I am concerned, it is not a historic concept for this period, just a convenient, confusing concept coined possibly by French historiography. So I advocate for a change to the article Francia also, and I would support it. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

the infobox is a mess
the visigoths and lombards weren't really involved and the franks and aquitaine weren't fighting against each other TheBritishDoge (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)