Talk:Kingdom of Galicia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kingdom of Galicia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Galicia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Galicia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Galicia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GaliciaWikipedia:WikiProject GaliciaTemplate:WikiProject GaliciaGalicia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Spain Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Portugal Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Portugal To-do: edit history watch purge Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo. Improve key articles to Good article Portugal Lisbon Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box). Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles Middle Ages B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Combat helmet#Medieval and early modern militaries|medieval helmets]] The anchor (#Medieval and early modern militaries) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Galicia was the first kingdom of Western Europe. And it was one of the oldest for centuries: it begun in the year 409 and finished in 1833. The Suebic Kingdom is also known as the "Galliciense Regnum", in Latin language, spoken at that time, the "Galician Kingdom". This was also one of the three kingdoms under the Visigothic Crown, since 585, with Hispania and Septimania -from the "Gallia Septimania", currently in France and Catalonia-. When Hispanic Kingdom got muslim, in 711, Galician Kingdom was independent again, but keeping a continuity. In fact, the first kings were relatives of the last king of Galicia under the Visigothic Crown, Witiza. The courts were established in Oviedo, in Asturias, at that time a Galician region. Later, the Galician kings put the capital city in Leon, another Galician city at the High Middle Ages. So, there were not "Kings of Asturias" or "Kings of Leon". There where only "Kings of Galicia" until Xth century, when the Kingdoms of Leon and Asturias were created and became independent from Galicia for the first time. However, these kingdoms, later with Castile, were under the Galician Crown until XIIIrd century.

Asturias, Leon, Portugal or Coimbra were parts of Galicia, as Central Galicia. Oviedo, Leon, Xixon, Porto, Navia, Bragança, Chaves, Viana do Castelo or Vilafranca do Bierzo were Galician cities, like Lugo, Ourense, Pontevedra, Santiago or Corunna. In fact, Asturians, Artabrians, Lucenses, Pretamaricans, Postamaricans, Callaeci, etc., were Galician tribes at the time of the ancient Gallaecia, before the arrival of the Roman legions. It changed at the Low Middle Ages, after the foundation of several kingdoms which only then begun to be different from Northwestern, or Central, Galicia. However, today the people from Asturias, Leon or Northern Portugal conserve an important part of their ancient Galician culture and heritage, such as the language -there are thousands of Asturian and Leonese Galician-speakers-, the music, the clothes or the gastronomy.

The last king of Galicia was John of Gaunt, John II of Galicia, at the end of XIVth century. But Galicia existed as a kingdom until XIXth century: when Spanish Crown lost its territories in continental America after Napoleonic Wars, the Spanish kings looked at the kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsule in order to colonize them even more. Two hundred years ago, 99 per cent of Galicians were Galician-speakers, but today less than 60 per cent speak Galician language (over one million and a half citizens). Even by this way, however, Galicia is currenly the only one 'historical' nation, and the only one autonomous community, under the Spanish Kingdom/State, where Castilian/Spanish is not the most spoken language. 19:38, 29 April 2010 ~~85.91.69.59~~

Leaving aside that the Suebic kingdom of the Roman province of Gallaecia (not the same as Galicia to begin with) was conquered by the Visigoths in the 6th century and ceased to exist permanently and irremediably since then, Where is the political center of this supposed Kingdom of Galicia during the 8th and 9th centuries? Centuries in which the Kingdom of Asturias existed and was the actual Kingdom by the way. There is no any remains, absolutely any remains, in Braga, Santiago de Compostela, Porto, Coruña... or any other city that you will claim as the "Galician capital", on the other hand we have the royal palace in Oviedo and a lot of buildings built during the 8th and 9th centuries in Asturias, manly in the surroundings of Oviedo which clearly shows this was an important political and cultural center, the capital of an actual Kingdom and not a fantasy. And all this without taking into account all the chronicles of the 8th and 9th centuries that talk about the "Asturum Regnum", we have Carolingian chronicles that talk of the embassy of the Kingdom of Asturias in Aachen, but nothing about an embassy of the Kingdom of Galicia. This is so easily denbunked, yet this article still full of lies, most of the references are links to unsubstantiated claims made by Galician regionalists, what a joke Wikipedia is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.152.128.29 (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Visigothic crown was never a thing, the very concept of "crown" as a monarchical entity in which several kingdoms are grouped didn't even exist, there is no such thing as "Galicia under the Visigothic crown". Almost reaches schizophrenia to say that the kingdoms of Asturias and León didn't exist, yet the kings of this supposed Kingdom of Galicia had their centers of power in Asturias and León, pure comedy.

As a curious fact, the Spanish language was the ONLY native language of ALL the cities in Galicia since the 16th century, the Galician language was relegated to a marginal position in rural areas and wasn't used again by urbanites until the 20th century with the regionalist movement sponsored by the State of the autonomous communities imposed by liberal democracy. It was the decision of the Galicians of centuries ago to stop speaking Galician, there was no "colonization" or any fallacy you say to support the separatist discourse. Language is an instrument and if it doesn't serve to communicate, it stops being useful and people start to stop using it.

A Kingdom of Galicia hasn never existed, or better said it has never existed in the way the galician nationalist want to make us believe. They claim the suebinan kingdom to be the first phase of their kingdom and Hermenaric to be the first king of Galicia. While it is true that the Kingdom of the Suevi has sometimes been refered as the Kingdom of Galaecia, Regnum Galaeciae , it doesent´t change that Galicia and Galaecia are not identical as Galecia also includes parts of the neiboring regions of Asturia and northern Portugal. And even if you equate Galicia with Galaecia, it doesen´ change that the kingdom ceased to exist in 585 when it was conquered by the visigoths. The article claims the the kingdom was part of the Visigothic monarchy or the VIsigothic crown as if the visigothic kingdom was somewhat of personal or dynastic union similar to the crown of arragon or the crown of castille, but such a concept diddn´t exist back than , ther was only one kingdom the kingdom of the visigoths refered to Rgnum Visigotorum in Latin sources. After the muslim conquest the region was briefly occupied by the moors and while some people here have argued the the region never camed under de-facto moorish rule, it doesnt´t mean that a Kingdom of Galicia of any shape or form existed on the territory. In any case the region was quickly reconquered by the kingdom of Asturia, but again ther was(it this point) only one kingdom, the kingdom of Asturia. Might be that an independent or semi-independant Kingdom of Galicia existed durring the high middel ages within the crown of castille, but the continuity from the the suebi , the claim that galicia was one of the first Kindoms and europe etc. its all a fabrication . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CD:A716:9400:1DA7:A205:981C:C0FB (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a university researcher. The Suevic kingdom is always referred to as Galicia. The one that never existed was the kingdom of Asturias, as a curiosity I would like to say if I may say that at the beginning of the 20th century in Spanish historiography where Pelayo rose it was not in Asturias, it was in Galicia with the tagline that he was sent by the king of Asturias, from the 40s Pelayo himself no longer rose in Galicia, he rose in Asturias and was no longer commanded by any king, he was the king, this is continuous nonsense that continued with the Covadonga, but in Covadonga there is nothing, there is no remains of any battle and even less of the corpses of that revolt, how is this possible? Even the bones of the dinosaurs are preserved and not those of those people who fought much later. It is nonsense as I have already said. In addition, this Pelayo did not really rise up anywhere and did not even exist, his figure is based on an unreliable bounty hunter, and this does appear in historical documents but not precisely with the acts that are attributed to him, rather it was Known as lowly and petty to put it mildly, not to say that he always acted for his own interests. This is not only mentioned by the Spanish archives, but also by the Arab ones. The same happens even with the Cid himself, his figure is too idealized, but again the Arabs themselves called the cid "Galician dog". But in reality that person to whom that was attributed was not the cid, it was the person on whom the cid is based, and this is known in fact the cid is taken from the appendices of the Liber regnum from 1196 to 1209, the Chronicle of the Kings of Castile in 1236 and the Poem by Fernán González in 1250, although expelling the Muslims if they did, to put it mildly. According to the compilation of Arabic texts called Ajbar Machmúa (S. XI): "The Galicians, taking advantage of the Civil conflict between the Muslims in the mid-eighth century rose up against Islam and seized the entire district of Asturias” (this is not the reconquest, although what is known as such was born from this data). The sources of this are not exactly a school book, it is more -According to the III Council of Toledo, canon 2, equal prayers are established for "Per omnes ecclesia Spaniae, Galliae vel Galliciae"., According to the XIII Council of Toledo, in in 683, Ervigio's decree speaking of tax matters: “In provinciam Galliae vel Galliciae atque in omnes provincias Hispaniae”. Also Juan de Biclara, in his writings, distinguishes the province "Gallecie" from the province "Gothorum" (Visigothic). In Charlemagne times the Council of Frankfurt was held in 794, it was attended by bishops of R. Galiciae according to the records. When Charlemagne himself resided in Aachen he received embassies from the kings of Galiciae from 796 to 798 according to the Frankish chroniclers. Let's go, this kingdom already existed before the supposed reconquest, and no, it was not only the current autonomous community, it was the entire Galicia with the county of Portugal included, Asturias, León and it came to include part of other current communities, also already logic speaks for itself, from Gallaeica or the kingdom of Gallaecia it became the reindeer of Galicia, it is nonsense that Gallaecia evolved like Asturias, it is that even the coat of arms of Galicia is omnipresent and has a double quartering of what has been a kingdom, for that reason The supposed cross of Asturias does not appear on the coat of arms of Spain, whatever they say, because doing so would be a historical error and for this reason the historical religious falsehood could not be maintained. Now I emphasize that this kingdom was not only the current Galician autonomous community, They were all the aforementioned territories, it was the Kingdom of Galicia.

Spain falsifies its own history for religious reasons since it was not the Catholic Spain but the Arian Spain. The same happens with the supposed Muslim invasion when it is nonsense, there was already Islam, Arianism (yes) Catholicism, Judaism and paganism a hundred years before that and the Muslim commanders would have some whopping 200 years, that is why there are no genetic traces of the same in the blood of the Spaniards, it is because those Muslims were Spaniards converted to that religion for disparate reasons, such as paying less taxes.

No kingdom of Asturias ever existed, that is what the Spanish archives, the Arab archives and archives from other parts of the world say. This is not Spain to manipulate, go to the British Museum and you will see that the kings of Leon are also called, above all, kings of Galicia. Asturias was a principality throughout its history. Look at the medieval cartography and you will see how Asturias appears small and Galicia large, when Leon appears it does so as a Galician city, because at that time it was, it was the depopulated paramo leones, I don't even mention Asturias, a generic name given by the Romans to a deserted land due to its Roman capital, Astorga.

Go fiddle with your Catholic Spanish nationalism elsewhere. 139.47.52.169 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First: the area associated with most countries, states, even regions, changes over time.

Second, just an example, an snipet: Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, V.41: “Mirus rex Galliciensis legatos ad Guntchramnum regem dirixit”.

Translated into French: “Mir, roi de Gallice, envoya des messagers au roi Gontran” (https://books.google.es/books?id=0XUaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA310#v=snippet&q=galice&f=false)

Translated into English: “Ambassadors were despatched to King Gunthram’s court from Mir, King of Galicia (https://books.google.es/books?id=xVBiCOBX4WMC&lpg=PP1&dq=History%20of%20the%20Franks&pg=PR5-IA40#v=onepage&q=Galicia&f=false)--Froaringus (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contemporary chronicle of visigothics period that affirmes that the Suevo Kingdom continued after the conquest by the King Visigoth Leovigildo in 585, it is impossible for the kingdom of Galicia to have had an uninterrupted continuation from 410 to 1833. The Visigoth Kingdom did not admit other kingdoms in their breast, so it was divided into provinces that is the official term used by the Visigoth Chronicles, therefore Galicia had ceased to be a kingdom after the conquest of 585. Only three times after the conquest of the Suevo Kingdom, it is mentioned that Galicia distinguishes from Spain in Visigothic period, but does not speak of the kingdom of Galicia. The rest of the mentions (which are also the majority) speaks of Spain including Galicia in its territory.~~Segobirras~~ ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Segobirras (talk • contribs) 14:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, wouldn't it be better to write "409 - 585; 910 - 1833" (with a line break instead of a semicolon) then? LVDP01 (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. That would be more correct. But not the right thing either. The date 410 was still too early for the chronicles to have used the term Kingdom of Galicia as Gregorio de Tours, bishop and historian in the 6th century did to the Suebic kingdom. That is why the edition of it in the spanish language is very difficult to admit that date (410) as the birth of the Kingdom of Galicia. This may be the date to speak of a Suebic domain, but not yet to associate it as a Kingdom of Galicia at first. In fact, the Suebi coveted their power far more than the ancient Roman province of Gallaecia. But we can say that in the 6th century if there was a Kingdom of Galicia, at least that is what foreigners like Gregorio de Tours perceived.Segobirras (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]