Talk:Duchy of Gascony

Untitled

For archived discussion, see Archive 1.

Extent of Eudes rule

(First contribution comes from previous thread. Cut and pasted by Wllacer for clarity)

Sugaar, the map you re-added seems a little imprecise for any time period, though it is more accurate for certain periods of Merovingian and Carolingian rule than others. I don't think it represents Odo's Aquitaine as well as it represents late Charlemange, early Louis the Pious Gascony, which certainly included Pamplona. Even than, I don't think there was a political border with Asturias and the extent of Frankish control was de facto probably slightly smaller at any given moment. Srnec 17:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As for Louis. If you accept the dependence of Pamplona after 806 (which I'dont, see above), I agree with you that subpirenaican efective control should be rather more limited, and the gascon borders should exclude at least some areas (Fezensac for sure, Bearn probably)

As for Eudes. Given that he is first documented as having defeated a moorish force, most if not all the subpirenaican area should be scrapped. Pamplona was under moorish control by 718, and at least one of their raids -the one which ravaged Gascogny and destroyez Eauze, according to Monzelun- assembled in Pamplona. There is no trace of Wasconia ruled separatedly, so the northern limit should be the Loire. To make thing worse, there are even scholars which doubt over the efective control of the Eudonians over Gascogne proper (see Rabanais) --Wllacer 12:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1. It's not fully clear when Eudes started his reign (either 688, 692, 710 or 715, see Duke of Gascony and its talk page). The map obviously represents before Muslim conquests (c. 710-715).

2. The map is a (hand made) copy from a valid source (Auñamendi) [1], and I was modest enough to point to the incipient existence of Asturias somewhere by the west, something that Estornés doesn't do.

3. The extent of Frankish control was surely smaller almost always. The map represents the independent Duchy under sovereign Dukes of Vasconia and Aquitaine, only nominally vassals of the Frankish realm, if at all, not "Frankish" control, almost always contested.

4. The Duchy of Vasconia existed before and after the union with Aquitaine. Estornés is very clear in talking of personal union and so does for instance Krutwig, who follows Estornés surely, who uses the term "confederation". There's no sign of fussion between the two states but rather union under a single monarch, union that was dissolved when Aquitaine was defeated by the Franks and the Vascones (Lop II, surely elected and arguably elading the Basque army at Roncevaux) decided to stay apart accepting Frankish overlordship for some time. I read somewhere that the last independent Aquitanian Duke (Waifer?) was "extradited" by Lop II (but not sure where).

5. Obviously the Duke and his Court, specially in time of danger would act as a single body, yet the fact that there are no rebellions and the fact that Vasconia re-emerged after the fall of Aquitaine under local sovereigns, clearly points to a separate entity, conclussion that is generally accepted, even if it's not clear in the primary sources. --Sugaar 23:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to go over Sugaar's points one by one.

1. The start of Odo's reign is unknown, but his first mention in primary sources is indeed from 711 (I think). He probably began his reign circa 700. It is a little presumptuous therefore to define the map as referring to Odo's duchy, as we don't really know of Odo before the Moslem conquest.
2. The map is not worthless, as it probably expresses the utmost extent of Frankish rule in Spain at the time of the early Carolingians, and perhaps of earlier (Merovingian) periods before the Moors too, but it does not necessarily show an real political entity and the borders of the red-shaded area are both imprecise in part and too precise in part. They give the notion that Asturias and Gascony shared some sort of "border" (imprecise) and clearly delineate a jagged border which excludes Bordeaux and other regions (such a border is too precise for the known sources). I think that map needs to be altered or removed unless a date can be give with a primary source to cite its accuracy. Certain reliable secondary sources which rely heavily on primary sources would be acceptable, but only if the primary basis for their assertions is clear, so the reader can make up his own mind about their conclusions.
3. I think the independence and sovereignty of Vasconia and Aquitaine are the precisely the points under dispute right now. I would avoid using the term "sovereignty" in the Dark Ages. Vasconia was two provinces: Vasconia Citerior and Vasconia Ulterior. The former became the Duchy of Gascony and the latter became the Kingdom of Pamplona (Navarre). Certainly, therefore, after a transpyrenean rebellion in 824, part of Vasconia was independent (and sovereign) and made itself so de jure over time. Ignoring the late ninth through tenth centuries, Vaconia was not independent of Carolingian authority, though the transpyrenean portion was under the most tenuous suzerainty. There were many claimants to Carolingian power in Aquitaine (a kingdom) at the time and this affected the situation on the ducal level in Gascony, creating an excellent opportunity for the de facto independence of the following century. The duchies of the Merovingian period were certainly Frankish creations, both Aquitaine and Gascony, though these two were clearly with the hands of one duke from about 660 to sometime in the middle of the eighth century. It appears (to me) that this duchy was always a de jure Frankish vassal state (because it was a Frankish creation), but that under Odo, at least, it was de facto independent and the princeps Odo refused to recognise the authority (at first) of the Frankish princeps Martel. It seems that sometime after Hunald's defeat brought Aquitaine into the Frankish fold, the Basques (Gascons, Vascones) of Vasconia Citerior (Duchy of Gascony) and perhaps the transpyrenean lands elected their own duke in a bid for independence. This was Lupus II. He eventually submitted to the Franks who had created his state. There is no long period of time in which any part of Vasconia can be considered sovereign until Navarre in or around 824.
4. I dealt with a lot of this point in my last point. Aquitaine was a vast Frankish duchy based on an old Roman province. Before it had dukes, it had a king (capital at Toulouse, the later ducal capital). It remained a polity of some sort (duchy or kingdom) until the High Middle Ages and the Hundred Years' War. Gascony was originally a frontier duchy (a march) against the Basques. It was Frankish creation, with a Roman predecessor in Vasconia Citerior. The Gascon march was governed by the Aquitainian dukes for over a century before the Basques began to take power. Thereafter, Gascony is a Basque duchy with very loose ties to Frankland. The incident with Waifer that you are thinking of is that in which he fled to Lupus' court, but the Gascon duke, eventually brought to fear the Franks, surrendered him to Charlemagne and did homage for his duchy.
5. I would agree that at no point can Aquitaine and Vasconia/Gascony be considered the same thing. During the period of personal union, there is very little evidence on their government. Gascony definitely remained distinct from Aquitaine following the fall of the Eudonian dynasty.

I hope this helps clear up my position and allows us to get to the bottom of any disagreements. As to Wllacer's points about Pamplonese dependence and Eudonian control of Gascony, I will hopefully address those soon. Srnec 16:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The map does not intend to show "Frankish" domain either Merovingian nor Carolingian but the approximate extension of the Duchy c. 711-14 (and surely before). You surely know how Eudes was strongly confronted with Charles Martell and only asked for Frankish help (Poitiers/Tours) in the last moment out of desperation. You also know that the Merovingian state was for the most part a very weak kingdom unable to impose Frankish domain too far from Aachen and Paris. Surely there was some sort of formal vassallage but even this is not really clear.

I can only guess how the source map was drawn but guess that the borders of Novempopulania (old Aquitaine) were used as reference. The source map, that is larger (includes Aquitaine), shows the Moorish campaigns and is clearly refered to as Eudes' duchy.

Read WP:SOURCE. Primary sources are not the main source of Wikipedia but secondary ones. Hence the map is duly sourced, even if I guess that it can be contested based in other reliable secondary sources maybe. Do you have any? While you don't, it's just your opinion vs. that of a respected scholar.

824 does seem the date of consolidation of Pamplona as independent state (after the decisive defeat of Eblus) but the state of rebellion in most of Vasconia was a constant in all the Carolingian period (and that of his immediate succesors) and you should remember that the battle of 824 is just the last of a series of three Frankish campaigns, the first of which was a decisive Frankish defeat, the second one was a stalemate (let's consider it a Frankish partial victory) and the third one was again a decisive defeat of the Franks, creating the basis for the successful rebellion of Sans some decades later, after his collaborationist predecessor had passed away and the situation among Franks was more unstable.

If Eudes refused to acknowledge Frankish sovereignity, then it was "de jure" independence, not "de facto". "De facto" would be if he acknowledged Martell's overlordship (without further consequences), in the very moment he didn't recognize Frankish overlordship it was a "de jure" independence: he made it legal (if it wasn't before). I only admit that during Eudes and his antecessors Franks may have kept their formal claim of sovereignity over Aquitaine-Vasconia - but being unable to enforce it in any way.

There's no "Roman province of Vasconia citerior": Vasconia-Gascony was called first Aquitania and then Novempopulania (as the name Aquitaine had been transfered north of the Garonne). Romans only said Vascones refereing to the tribe inhabiting Navarre and parts of Guipuscoa, Aragon and La Rioja, and, later, refering to all Basques but the name "Vasconia" first appears in Medieval texts, refering both to Southern and Northern Basque Country, then including all Gascony.

I'm not sure what's the "Vasconia ulterior". From Frankish perspective it should be southern Basque Country but I doubt it's ever mentioned as such (at least I don't know where). Just that the County of Vasconia (a temporary entity) is sometimes mentioned as Vasconia Citerior.

Aquitaine was a formerly Gothic territory, with heavily independent aristocracy that was never fully submitted to the Franks but for brief periods. In fact it seems to have acted as buffer for the Basques, specially in the time of dynastic union. Dhont (1967) says:

South of the Loire was Aquitaine, the largest territory of Southwest France, that was deeply romanized. Aquitaine kept for centuries its own aristocracy that made up the substance of a truly independent people. In the second half of the 8th century, and specially under Charlemagne, the Frankish state tried energically to weaken in Aquitaine these national political forces and sent there a large number of Frankish bureaucrats. Yet this measure was insufficient. Aquitaine was, even for most of the 9th century, a large rebel bloc, and the adversaries of state power always found partidaries in this territory.

Therefore I understand (and I'm not the only one it seems) that the personal union of Aquitaine-Vasconia was an alliance of two nations that tried to join forces to escape the pressures coming from Frankish and Gothic centers, specially from the first one.

We agree it seems that Vasconia/Gascony and Aquitaine were separate entities that never really were fused but you put too much emphasis in "Frankish domination" when in reality this one was very weak, when existent at all, not just south of the Garonne but even just south of the Loire.

Sure that the Merovingians did at some point control Aquitaine... but lost control almost immediately after. The Carolingians would repeat the feat but their control would be very weak again soon after, as early France (Western Frankish Kingdom) sunk into feudalism until the Hundred Years War, where the country provided aboundant pro-English (i.e. anti-French) feelings.

There's a natural tendency to compare the past with the present but, while peripheric countries like England or Castile, had a relatively weak feudalism, France was the prototype of it (even Germany was much more centralized for centuries). France was only truly unified after the Hundred Years War and would only become a really centralized country with the French revolution. In the 16th century Machiavelly still mentioned France as the archetypal example of very divided country that could be easy to conquer but hard to keep. --Sugaar 15:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I own two well know historical atlases: the "DTV-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte" and F. Garcia de Cortazar's "Atlas de Historia de España". For the timeframe, nothing remotely resembling your source's appears. Nor in any other book on early medieval history i've ever seen. And online, you can find maps with the aproximative extent of Eudes' rule in [2] and [3], -based on Rouche-. You will see that they diverge seriously from Estornès'

You mention, more often than not, that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While this is true, you can not rely on a theory without any factual support, simply because it is not contradicted by the evidence (a la Dan Brown's). A point in case. It's true we don't know for sure the status of Pamplona precisely on 711; but on the other hand, there is absolutely NO evidence that it was ever (after 541 and prior to 778/806) controled by a northern power. Even assuming that there were no indications of visigothic control after 541, -which is not the case-; based on which facts can anybody claim that it belonged that year to the duchy of Wasconia -if it existed as an autonomous polity by then?

For this kind of reasoning (basically unfalsable because done out of the void), the mildest term you'll find from a scholar is fringe. And Estornés', in this case, is dangerously near more than once. This is not what i would call a reliable secondary source. And, I hate to repeat, most (if not all) which can be considered as such, don't even care to contradict his pet "GrossWaskonien" thesis, they just go on without it.

Wasconia (and wascones), in the timeframe between 700-900, refered a lot of times to the whole of Aquitania, and curiously, and a well known fact, by the last date -if not earlier-, as a antropo-geographic term, disapears totally from the southern sources, leaving only "vascuence" for the language, and "vasco" for people north of the Pyrenees.

Let's move on, pls. There are more interesting things about Wasconia/Gascony worth to concentrate--Wllacer 13:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your links (and surely all the other sources you mention) take the modern Spanish-French border by default. We have no real reason to think that's valid. In fact, logic says it's plainly wrong.

One important problem is that the historiography of the area has been not just lacking of clear sources but also strongly biased by the ethnocentric perspectives of Spain and France. And there you see once again the modern border drawn even for Roman times (all it being just anachronistic nonsense) and Asturias-Leon extended to the East based in the filmsiest of arguments (a marriage with a Basque woman). Traditionally Basques have not seriously challenged that distorted perception of Medieval history but this has begun to change and quite significatively.

What Estornés says is that Vasconia is something that extends from the Ebro to the Garonne (in the Early Middle Ages), and that's very logical considering the extension known for Basque language (and therefore Basque ethnicity) in Antiquity. Additionally it's confirmed by sources, both Gothic and Frankish. You might argue that Vasconia is an ethnographic term for the Goths, while a political term for the Franks (something you haven't done so far). But what is not really clear is wether both are the same thing for Basques - that is what Estornés defends and has caught deep into modern Basque historiography.

At least at times, according to Estornés, the independent Dukes of Vasconia controlled Southern Vasconia (sometimes called "Gallia Comata", as for what I recall of the paper edition of the Auñamendi Encyclopedia, a much more complete document than the online one).

There is no data of Gothic control of Pamplona. The northermost advance registered of the Goths is Olite (Oligitum). The only foreign power who controlled Pamplona in that period were the Umayyad Caliphate and very briefly (in two occasions) and the Franks under Charlemagne (again very briefly). But it's likely that it was attached to the Duchy of Vasconia when it was an independent entity. The border of the Western Pyrenees did not exist then, it's mentioned nowhere and it's plainly ilogical. The Pyrenees may be a border for Franks/French and Goths/Spaniards but for Basques is our backbone. No wonder that most decisive battles took place near it (Zuberoa, Roncevaux 1, 2 and 3, etc.).

You might say: the southern area should be marked differently, as independent Vascones but not clearly as Duchy of Vasconia. And I could maybe take that as a more serious approach, despite the fact that Estornés has somewhat solid arguments to sustain that there was no Pyrenean border, that Vasconia run from the Ebro to the Garonne. But what I can't take as serious is maps drawn over modern borders with a blank in the other side. That's nationalist politics, not history. --Sugaar 07:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Some online materials (other than Estornés and Auñamendi) supporting the extent of Vasconia from the Ebro to the Garonne: Ildefonso Gurrutxaga, Encarta encyclopedia, [Ducado de Vasconia Teresa Frenández Ulloa], Iberinfo, Hiru ed., Pedro Oyanguren, Buber Basque Page (only relevant site in English other than this article and its many mirrors)

The official site of Santiago de Compostela gives one reference that you may like to read too: Adolf Schulten, Las referencias sobre los Vascones hasta el año 810 después de J.C., artículo disponible en edición digital. --Sugaar 08:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

First, thanks for the Schulten reference. Second, try to locate scholary references, then i will discuss it over again. I'm sad for Encarta. Third, they DO are Gothic references to Pamplona (see again in Talk:Vascones#Domuit_Vascones, and there are arqueological finds which point to Pamplona and Albelda garrisoned during that times (link forthcoming). Forth, the coincidence of lingüistic, cultural, religious and political borders is mostly the exception in history rather than the rule.

A blank on a map is many times the best solution unless they are reasonable proofs on the contrary. Wllacer 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in Talk:Vascones#Domuit_Vascones that says that Pamplona was ever under Gothic control. Do not invent your references please and specially, try to save works to others by giving your references in situ (that's here).

In the Early Middle Ages the concept of Duchy was basically that of an ethnic province, often ruled by native leaders (that's what dux means in Latin: "leader"). Not just Vasconia was an ethnically differentiated duchy, the same happened with: Aquitaine, Burgundy, Swabia, Bavaria and Saxony, for instance. Later it was the case of Brittany too (once unified). That's the very essential meaning of duchy: ethnic realm, as opposed to county (smaller administrative division) and march (border military district). As the period advanced, the different concepts got confused at times and eventually they even became undifferentiated nobiliary titles, yet the European nobiliary traditions still keep a formal hierarchy among them, at least in the drawing of the respective heraldic crowns., being Duke the highest one, next to King.

You are both accusing me of using modern concepts for the past and using them yourself. While modern nationalism is a 18th-19th century creation, its roots are naturally older and you can't deny that ethnic identitarian feeling ("we are not they": Greeks vs. Barbarians, Euskaldunak vs. Erdeldunak, French vs. other nations) is often if not always older than modern nationalism. Greeks may never have formed a united national state but national feeling was resourced to specially in the event of the Medic Wars (and later by Macedonians). French resourced to an incipient national feeling in the Hundred Years' War, English did the same. Peripheric semi-tribal nations like Basques, Britons, Frisians, Saxons (for some time), Scots, Welsh, etc. resourced undoubtly to the national feeling to defend their independence and particularities. Even such badly defined ethnic groups as Aquitanians and Bavarians did (both were very problematic for the Carolingians).

So, yes, ethnic realities did exist in Europe before modernity and they did play a role, sometimes an important one. You want to deny that, specially for smaller nations such as the Basque one, but you are just plainly wrong. You have admitted prejudices on the matter: it's just your opinion and that of Habermas. --Sugaar 05:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid repetition, but this is what i wrote verbatim, regarding direct witnesses:

Last first. Pamplona is cited twice in visigothic chronicles, both times twined to Caesaraugsta. First in 467 as the FIRST conquered hispanic town by the goths, and 541 when it was lost (temporally, it seems) to the franks (Both cites, MGH AA. Chronica Minora, vol I, pg. 664 and 223 respectively).

Pamplona also appears on two lists of bishoply sees under visigothic rule which for sure postdate the elevation of Toledo as metropolitan see (c. 600) (same volume pg. 573 and 382). And don't forget the well known "De laude Pampilona"

My sources can be checked online at Monumenta Germaniae Historica digital open for anyone to read. Your wording is coming dangerously close to libel.

One last thing. You seem to have a very outdated view of the Late Antiquity/Early Middle Age. Have a look at Averil Cameron, Wallace-Haddril, Collins, Wood or Orlandis--13:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Wllacer

What "libel" and what nonsense?! Please don't make ad hominem accusations, specially when they are not argumented (I really have no idea of what you're talking about).

I can't find your sources, could you make direct links instead of putting the burden of research in the other party? It's not so difficult if you know what you are refering to and it is your responsability, not mine. Still remember that secondary sources are prefered to primary ones (don't know why but that's what WP:SOURCE says).

You seem to say that Visigoths claimed to control Pamplona (for how long? Remember that they had to conquer Olite south of it and also the towns of Cantabria, so I make really no sense of it as "first conquest").

I don't know if it's me or it's you who have an outdated view of the Early Middle Ages. My views have evolved towards Basque independence in the period after c. 400 as new findings (like the Roman "inner limes") have been coming to light. Again your sources are vague (no ISBNs not even a date of publication - and not a single quote). Putting the burden of your proof in me. Sorry but that is your responsability: I have more than sufficiently documented my edits (and I have been the one who researched in order to create this article and the map and an improved choronology of the Dukes of Vasconia, you have only been bringing objections, no positive apportations), it is your responsability to document your disident opinions (see WP:NPOV). --Sugaar 06:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind to discuss conflicting views within scholary courtesy.

Review my contributions from the start (your archival is, in this sense, highly untimely) and you will see the secondary references you claim to miss, and why i started this discussion. There are no ISBN's, but always scholary standard references.

I avoid doing "deep links" in sites like the "Monumenta" as they can change at whim, and the information is easly reachable with the data i give.

I have used secondary or (online, thus easily verifiable) primary sources, as they were more or less suitable for the point on discussion, and i will keep doing it.

If you want a modern (and often cited) secondary reference which supports the idea of a wisigothic Pamplona, see Juan José Larrea, Pierre Bonnaise, "La Navarre du IVe a XIIe siécle. Peuplemenent et Societé", De Boek Universite, 1998, ISBN 280412777X pg. 111 passim. Larrea is now Professor at the UPV-EHU Vitoria, and was for a while Vicerector de Euskera there (IIRC).

Wllacer 11:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been able to contribute to this discussion during my vacation the past six days. Sadly, it doesn't seem to have made too much progress.

Sugaar's comments of the 26 Dec indicate that he does not regard Aquitaine (and Gascony/Vasconia) as being under Frankish dominion during Odo's time. However, we know that the cispyrenean territory of Aquitaine was definitely Frankish in the late seventh century and Martel clearly acts as the lawful authority attempting to reassert his power rather than as a conqueror. Whether or not Odo recognised the Franks is not relevant. A rebel does not recognise the proper authority, but he is not indepedent de jure.

That said, the point about sources is relevant. Secondary sources are most important for an project like this and one must be provided which contests the map. Yet, it seems Wllacer has given at least two. The truth is not known with certainty by any scholar, but opinion seems to favour one of Wllacer's maps as far as I can tell. I changed the caption to encapsulate the controversy.

The issue of a Visigothic Pamplona seems irrelevant to this article, so the discussion should probably happene elsewhere, but I will weigh in. The entire Basque country was certainly considered part of the kingdom over which the Visigoths ruled by the Goths and the presence of Pamplonese bishops at councils of the Spanish church strongly evidences the incorporation of Pamplona into the realm, even if the Basques were de facto independent in their mountainous home. It was not until the Kingdom of Pamplona was formed that a truly independent entity was formed there, though royal authority never extended into the wildernesses of the Pyrenees except as long as the royal presence was there. Collins, p 68, makes Pamplona a Visigothic city in the seventh century at the time of the penning of the De laude Pampilona Epistola, and refers to its two enemies as "heretics and Vascones". The Visigoths, he writes, were masters of the whole peninsula.

I will avoid topics of nationalism, libel, and views of the Early Middle Ages and just suggest that we all keep the points of contention obvious and open and that we cite our sources and reason our arguments, all the while remaining on topic for an article titled "Duchy of Vasconia". Are there any more points of dispute relating to the content of the article? Srnec 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a precision about "De Laude" (text at [4]). The word it uses is "baceis" not "vascones", although the terms are considered synonymous (following Isidore's Etimologies witness). Sometimes the term is spelled vacceis. The Laude is usually dated (on stylish evidence) in the VII century or latter (and would be relevant here), although some scholars (Urzainqui, which the site owner follows) argue for a V century date.

Pamplona is relevant in this context on one point. While wisigothic control at the start of the VIII c. is not incompatible with (some of the) "vascones" not integrated in the then statal entities (what Sugaar, anachronically, calls "basque independence") be it in the "saltus" or elsewhere, it would render the "Great Wasconia" thesis as presented here imposible.Wllacer 13:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To Wllacer: we don't have all to be scholars. In fact I'm not. And the fact is that I could not find your sources. So you should make things easier for me (and any other accidental viewer of the discussion). If you want to act as scholar and not just as Wikipedia editor, you should probably adopt the attitude you would us when discussing with non-scholars (if you ever do). As said before, the burden of supporting your position is yours, not mine. And your references are not valid because: (a) I might find a book of, say, Collins that talks of China or cuisine (maybe it's another Collins) and that would be useless, and (b) while ISBN is not a must it's highly recommended (so international search for the same book is made easier) and, if not possible, at least the date of publication, the title and the full name of the author should be given. Aditionally I may not fing your source, the same that you might not find mine (at least easily), so providing quotes that support your argumentation is at least a matter courtesy. Else I have to accept your word in that, and I just can't (you have already mis-interpreted many materials already). --Sugaar 06:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all. I think apologies are needed in our behavior this last days. So please accept mine.

I'll try ASAP to provide you with the "deep links" for the Pamplona stuff (not today, i'm sorry).

Yep, perhaps i made some assumptions of knowledge on writing haste. The one Collins is Roger Collins. Srenc is using "The Basques", cited in the article biography in its 1990 edition, I'm using "Early Medieval Spain", 1995 edition of the same author.

Aren't you refering, f.i. to the "Albeldense" about misinterpretation?. It's funny. I'm exactly the opposite view ;-) Let us the matter rest for a while

--Wllacer 13:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To Srnec: well, it seems we don't agree in what's "de jure". I understand that a "rebel" that controls all the territory and claims to be independent (i.e. Somaliland, RNC) are "de jure" independent states, wether or not someone else has unfulfilled claims on their territory. "De facto" would be the case of Taiwan or Iraqui Kurdistan, who do recognize one way or another the sovereignity of another country: Iraqui Kurds recognize Iraq and Taiwan claims to be China. There's no supreme tribunal that can rule in conflicts of this sort. So "de jure" independence is when the "de facto" independent state claims to be so (while only "de facto" is when it recognizes another power as being formaly over it).

Claiming it's "Frankish" rule is anti-historical: it does deny the "de facto" situation and even, it seems, the "de jure" one as well. Franks were at times south of the Garonne but not in this particular case.

If i understand correctly, you are using the opposite terminology to Wikipedia (and to anyone else). Look a the start of the Somaliland entry. A modern government becomes "de jure" simply when it is recognized by third parties. Just have a look at List_of_unrecognized_countries for samples of the usage of "de facto".

Anyway, in the pre-1789 world the usage of such concepts can be misleading, or simply impossible. A sample to keep in the area. Take Dux Lupus (I). There is more or less consensus that he was a "de facto" (because he was the one who had the real power) independent ruler of Aquitaine. But at the same time he acted sometimes as he simply was a Merovingian official f.i. the Council he presided was done under the authority of Childeric II. So, technically he acknowledged his dependency on the Merovingians, at least until the latter's death (675)(Wood, pg. 229). That's called usually "de jure" dependence(this time should better be translated as "according to papers") Did this dependence went, at certain points, beyond "lip service"? The evidence is too sparse to be certain. Not to mention the vexing question on what exactly was "real power" back then (tax gathering, army/garrisoning monopoly, treasure, justice control, official appointment ?) and how it was exerted--Wllacer 13:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the article De jure please, Mr. Scholar. De jure only means "legal", and who makes the law makes it legal. So Somaliland is legally independent because they are the ones who make their own laws. Another thing is wether it is internationally recognized by other parties but that's a different issue. A country can be de jure independent and internationally not widely recognized (like Somaliland, RNC, the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa or Abkhazia and South Osetia, most of which are de facto dependant of some other power: Turkey, South Africa, Russia) and it can be only de facto independent and internationally recognized like Taiwan.

In the case of Vasconia-Aquitaine, it was probably de jure and de facto independent, at least in some periods. Wether or not the Franks recognized this legal and real independence is another issue but a different one. Whatever the case, claiming that what independent Aquitaine-Vasconia controlled was "Frankish" is just a mere nonsense in any case and surely a careless excercise of French (neo-Frankish) chauvinism.

I agree that the status de jure is not certain (for what I know) for the Vasco-Aquitaine period but when the Dukes openly reject Frankish rule, like with Hunald or Sans, then the status de jure is clearly that of independence. Not just de facto like in other periods. For what I've read Eudes also rejected Martell's domain before Tours, hence I understand that Eudes was, for some time at least, independent de jure, not just de facto. --Sugaar 14:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The relevance of Pamplona is still unclear to me, Wllacer. Even if it could be shown that it was in Visigothic hands in 711, it wouldn't follow that it was not necessarily gobbled up by Aquitaine/Gascony in the aftermath of the Guadalete, thus becoming a part of Odo's territory for a time. I suspect Visigothic control over most of the Basque country was always tenuous at best, except in the cities, like Pamplona, where, at least at times, the royal authority was clearly recognised. Perhaps, however, I do not see Sugaar's larger "Vasconia independiente" thesis.

Aquitaine was barely Frankish in population, but it was certainly a component of the Frankish state throught most of the VI and VII centuries. There is no reason to assume that this was not well-regarded as the legal arrangement. Even if the ability of the Merovings to control the outer sphere of their realm (including Brittany, Bavaria, Aquitaine) declined precipitously with the death of Dagobert I and continued in decline til the end of the VII century, it doesn't follow that anybody was confused about the legal connection the duchy maintained to the Frankish court. By Odo's time, it was certainly de facto independent, but Martel tried not to assert a new authority, but the old one. He was successfull. If Odo ever claimed de jure independence, he did so briefly. Another note on this, Odo may have objected to the authority of the mayor Charles because his duchy was a recreation of the old kingdom of Charibert II. Thus, he may have believed that the Austrasian mayor had no legal rights over him, only the Merovingian king. He claimed independence from Martel, but not from the Frankish state. Happily for him, the royal power was weak or nonexistent at that time. Srnec 19:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wllacer claims that Pamplona was Gothic just because in two occasions the Bishops of this city went to Toledo to a synod. He doesn't claim that for 711 actually but for some unclear but earlier date. It's in any case an unsubstantiated claim.

As I mentioned before, Belgian Jan Dhont, one of my references on Caroligian Europe (1967 for the German Edition, 1971 for the Spanish one, ISBN 84-323-0049-7 ) clearly says that there was a stable Frankish core including Neustria and Austrasia (later France, Lothairingia and Franconia), Swabia/Alammania, Burgundy and (after the definitive conquest by Charlemagne) Saxony. All the rest and particularly Aquitaine were rebellious and hardly ever well integrated in the Frankish heartland.

On Aquitaine, he says:

South of the Loire was Aquitaine, the largest territory of Southwest France, that was deeply romanized. Aquitaine kept for centuries its own aristocracy that made up the substance of a truly independent people. In the second half of the 8th century, and specially under Charlemagne, the Frankish state tried energically to weaken in Aquitaine these national political forces and sent there a large number of Frankish bureaucrats. Yet this measure was insufficient. Aquitaine was, even for most of the 9th century, a large rebel bloc, and the adversaries of state power always found partidaries in this territory.

The list of rebel territories includes also: Bavaria (until direct rule in 794), Frisia (Friesland), Vasconia and Brittany. The destiny of Frisians was tied to that of Saxons, while Vasconia and Brittany remained independent at, least "de facto", all the time, with the Franks launching against both successive campaigns with no "positive" results. Even the Spanish March (Catalonia) was only weakly under Frankish overlordship and worked in practice as a sovereign state, specially after Charlemagne's death. Bohemia was also weakly integrated, as were the Slavic marches of would-be Eastern Germany, not even Crhistianized.

Estornés and others (Sorauren, for instance) claim that not just Eudes but also his predecessors, since Felix, were "de facto" independent from Frankish rule and that the biggest rival of Eudes was precisely Charles Martell, who maneouvred to try to submit Aquitaine-Vasconia, something that only achieved with the accidental help of Muslim attacks. The fact that Eudes' heir, Hunald, would rebel again, shows the weakness of Frankish control, even at the apogee of Carolingians.

Sorauren states that the "trans-Pyrenean" (Frankish or Aquitanian) influence in southern Vasconia is clear, while the Gothic one isn't at all.

So I would say that you, Srnec, and I are basically in agreement with the difference that I would not emphasize "Frankish" influence, at least before Charlemagne but rather the "de facto" (if not "de jure") independence of the dual Duchy (and later that of Vasconia-Gascony, north of the Pyrenees, until its break up and the Angevin incorporation, and of Pamplona and Tudela south of the mountains as "de jure" sovereign states: one Christian and the other Muslim). --Sugaar 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of Srnec and other readers what I wrote regarding the Pamplonese Bishops and the Council of Toledo can be located a different thread (Talk:Vascones#Domuit_Vascones).

For anyone interested in Aquitanie in this period, the bibliography points as THE reference work Michel Rouche's "L'Aquitaine, des Wisigoths aux Arabes, 418-781: Naissance d'une région",Éditions Touzot, Paris, 1979. ISBN 2713206855. The book seems, though, hard to find nowadays Wllacer 09:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You can always quote the most relevant passages. That's what I do when using books to illustrate disputed aspects. Why do you claim that one to be "THE reference"? --Sugaar 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have created well-sourced articles at Austrovald, Genial, Aeghyna, Felix of Aquitaine, and Lupus I of Aquitaine that, taken together, should help create an accurate picture of the Aquitaine-Vasconia of the time. Sugaar, if there is anything from those articles for which would like to see a full quotation from one of the print resources, just ask. Wllacer, if there is anything that needs adding from a resource you have that I did not, please add it with the reference. Srnec 22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I just read two reviews, by the respectable Wallace-Hadrill[5] and Goffart[6], and neither convinces me that Rouche is THE reference for the "big" matters we're discussing, though he may be good for details. Srnec 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The map again... (dialogue copy-pasted from Image talk:Duchy of Vasconia.gif)

(copy-pasted from Talk:History_of_the_Basque_people)

I don't see any written source, outside the Auñamendi map (not corroborated by the text nearby, indeed) that would give any hint that Odo's duchy did extend south of the Pyrénées. A general book about French history I fetch tells me he was "master of most cities between the Loire and Pyrénées", but I see nothing giving any suggestion he controlled any bit of territory in present Euskadi or Navarra. I see hints of a Basque army he led, trying to conquer northern France (and defeated near Soissons, not precisely in Basque country !), but as far as I know, "Duchy of Vasconia" has nothing to do with any territory nowadays Spanish (except perhaps at Charlemagne's apogee, and only marginally in badly known conditions).

Hence I think this map is not scientific enough to be used in articles. French Tourist (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oups I discover there had been a thread about this map at Talk:Duchy_of_Vasconia. It might be better to keep all comments about its usefulness there , I suggest not to keep talking here. French Tourist (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss the map is here. I have said it several times.

The facts are that, once the Duchy became de facto independent, soon after its creation, it included all Basque lands. You (and others) assume too much power to Merovingian Franks (who were almost all the time fighting among themselves and had no forces to keep efefctive control of their periphery) and Visigoths (two thirds of the same). Even Carolingians were most of the time in civil war as well.

You also seem to assume that there was some "magic" defining the border between modern Spain and France. In fact, that border was abslutely non-existent and both Goths and Franks had claims on each other's territory and often fought for it. Basques were in the middle and normally fought for their own interest, it seems, eventually being unified under the "independent" Duchy of Vasconia.

The case is that the term Vasconia/Wasconia is in all sources coincident for a geogrpahy between the upper Ebro and the Garonne. Gothic documents do not mention the Duchy as such but just talk of "Vascones" and "Vasconia" but the sources are very sparce and unclear and nothing points to any artificial border at the Bidasoa and the Pyrenees, border that for most purposes has aout two centuries of history, not more. In any case, the Goths hardly ever conquered anything north of Olite and, in any case, when the Muslims finally conquer Vasconia, they do through Pamplona, after being defeated at Tolouse.

The mention of Soissons, seems completely irrelevant. If Eudes was fighting the Franks, it's only logic that he fought in Francia (originally the area directly controlled by the Franks: Northern modern France, Rhineland, Belgium, Franconia). He did not only command Basques but also Aquitanians, as you should know well, the romanized people with a Gothic (?) aristocracy between the Garonne and the Loire. --Sugaar (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"The facts are that, once the Duchy became de facto independent, soon after its creation, it included all Basque lands."

Let's try to check it. I have opened most if not all the sources which have been alluded to in Talk:Duchy_of_Vasconia. Which ones do support your assertion ?

1) The map itself [7] does not contain the word "Duchy". The legend of the map on the page the relevant page of Auñamendi encyclopedia does not contain the word "Duchy" either, but the expression "el estado vascón-aquitano" which indeeds probably refers to the Duchy.

2) Some sentences in the Auñamendi entry about Duchy of Vasconia ("1° Vasconia es un entidad que se extiende desde el mediodia de la actual Alava hasta el norte de la actual Zuberoa ya que en 58l la atacan en esos dos puntos para penetrar en su interior. Ambos reyes dicen entrar militarmente en Vasconia. 2° Entre los pueblos del norte, Geta, Dano, Estio, Saxo y Britano, se cita al wasco, lo que deja ver, que, contra lo que algunos historiadores creen, existían de siempre vascos en la antigua tierra aquitana. 3 º La acción Militar simultánea desde las orillas del Adur y las del Ebro, dejan ver que Vasconia constituía un peligro para ambos dominadores, el franco y el godo.(...)"). These sentences refer to Vasconia, not "Ducado de Vasconia". As I read them, they refer to "Vasconia", the area populated by Vascones -the topic of the Vascones article, not to the Duchy. Using them as sources would seem as dubious as using the sentence "Ireland extends from Kerry to Belfast" to prove that Belfast is part of the Republic of Ireland. Cultural/ethnic borders have no reason to be the same as political/military borders.

3) I must concede that in one of the websites you hinted to, that is this one, I could read a much more precise sentence, that is : "En la época de las invasiones bárbaras, posterior a Roma, se formó el ducado de Vasconia, que se extendía desde los tradicionales confines vascos en el valle del Ebro hasta el río Loire, confinando al sur con los visigodos, y al norte y este con los francos.". This source, though, is not a book but excerpts from a book, I have no idea of the qualifications of its author (Ildefonso Gurrutxaga if I understood it well), and no hint of the reasonings/primary sources he used to get to this conclusion. I cannot consider this source as usable in its present state.

On the other hand, at least two books from my bookshelves (Stéphane Lebecq - Les origines franques ISBN 2020115522 (a book about French history) and Histoire médiévale de la Péninsule ibérique (Adeline Rucquoi) ISBN 2020129353), though containing several referrences to Vascones, make absolutely no hint of Frankish control in Navarra at Odon's period. More strikingly the map this map from a rough (amateur) history of Aquitaine which seems to be extracted from Michel Rouche's dissertation about medieval Aquitaine does not look at all like the image we are discussing, with no extensions of Aquitaine south of the present border (except probably marginally, to the extent where Bayonne diocese contained places now Spanish, like Pasaia or Bastan).

With all these elements in hand, I can't agree with you : I don't see the control of southern Basque country by the Duchy as a fact but at least as some very dubious assertion.

"You also seem to assume that there was some "magic" defining the border between modern Spain and France."

I don't think I do, as you see I know perfectly well that Pasaia and Bastan have been part of Labourd long ago, or of course that Lower Navarre has been in French control for less than 500 years now, and that the border in this area is quite a recent creation, with all its funny tricks in Quinto Real, Valcarlos/Ondarolle or Irati forest. I don't think I suffer from "magic thinking" when considering these historico-geographical questions. Anyway, my possible biases are irrelevant since we are discussing a map I have not authored.

"The case is that the term Vasconia/Wasconia is in all sources coincident for a geogrpahy between the upper Ebro and the Garonne".

Absolutely OK with that, but I don't see the point : Vasconia is larger than Duchy of Vasconia, the same way as Ireland is larger than Republic of Ireland.

"The mention of Soissons, seems completely irrelevant".

OK with this one, let's forget it, we have enough to do with the Basque coutry :-).

I shall make a copy of our dialogue on Talk:Duchy of Vasconia ; I think it is at least relevant on both pages. Feel free to answer on whatever you like. French Tourist (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The map

The map is well sourced and there doesn't seem to be any practical difference between Vasconia and the Duchy of Vasconia. Excepting brief periods (early Merovingian creation and Chralemagne's and successors' largely failed campaigns) the Duchy was a de facto indepdendent state. There is archaeological evidence that the southern Basque country was under Frankish cultural influence (will search for the sources if needed) and there is no evidence that Pamplona was any sort of independent state before Eneko Aritza. If Pamplona arose as independent in the 9th century it was precisely because the Duchy had fallen under Frankish control (Carolingian epysode) and these Franks attempted to control the south as well. That was thwarted in the third Battle of Roncevaux, when that got the Duke of Auvergne sent to Cordoba to be beheaded, what prompted that Duke Sans could ragain all the Duchy north of the Pyrenees some years later, defeating (once again) the Frankish appointed lord (the Count of Bourdeaux).

It was in this interim period (between Charlemagne and Roncevaux III) when there were two Vasconias:

• The Frankish controlled Duchy (under the Count of Boudeaux), probably the area near the Garonne.
• The County of Vasconia, also vassal of the Franks under Aznar (but not under his son), controlling the Pyrenees both north (Northern Basque Country, probably larger areas as well, such as modern Béarn and Dax) and south (Aragon or Jaca).
• The Banu Qasi, around Tudela.

When the attempts of the Franks to control all the historical Duchy, including Pamplona, failed, the Kingdom of Pamplona was born and the Duchy, again unified an independent under Sans Sancion, became an nord-Pyrenean only entity that would become Gascony.

Before the Pyrenees were no border. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the Pyrenees were any sort of border before Pamplona was created (or even later). The Carolingians, naturally, did not consider it any border, nor did the Basques (of course). --Sugaar (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the Pyrenees were any sort of border before Pamplona was created" -> I agree with this sentence, but I can reply with "There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the Pyrenees were NOT any sort of border before Pamplona was created". As far as I have tried to understand all of this, we have nearly no information at all about the political situation in the Basque lands south of the Pyrénées before Charlemagne (and very few for the territories further north, but there at least some town names happen to appear casually in lists of bishops, or in treaties). I have spent a few hours yesterday in a library browsing throught Rouche's treaty about Merovingian Aquitaine - which is very detailed but cannot really help us, since it is definitely centered on the area north of the Pyrénées with very few informations about places now in Spain. In this library, I can find access to two other very useful sources in French, that is Manex Goyhenetche, Histoire générale du Pays basque, Elkarlanean Donostia, 1998, ISBN 2913156207 tome I and Juan-José Larrea, La Navarre du IVème au XIIème siècle, peuplement et société, De Boek Université, Bibliothèque du Moyen Âge, 14, Bruxelles, 1998. With all these three sources in hand, our articles about Vascons and Duchy of Vasconia seem quite flawed to me, but I shall not intervene in the short run ; I think I should read first, speak later - I shall come back (perhaps) in a few weeks (indeed, since I am not fluent in English, I shall probably try to write an article in the French Wikipedia first, then to use back excerpts of what I shall have written in French). In the short run, and only to get your opinion, what would you think of a merging between Vascons and Duchy of Vasconia ? The present article entitled "Duchy" contains lots of information about various political structures and battles concerning Vascons which are quite loosely related - if these informations were structured by gluing together in a same article everything which is about "Vasconia", I would feel it as a progress. French Tourist (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, there is not a discussion here on the map as I posted it somewhere some 6 months ago, not sure where I posted it. I let Sugaar know about the objections to the map besides all the discussed grounds. Basically the map doesn´t belong in any specific period, since Pamplona was in Umayyad hands by 714, and the map extends the duchy almost to the Ebro. Asturias at any rate can´t be there up to at least 718 or 722. Please put any comment you may have here. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The map again

A basque map including Briviesca, La Bureba and the Castille lands... you must be joking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.7.18.241 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The article Duke of Gascony is a non-article. The only real text is about the Duchy, which is already found in this article, followed by lists of names of the various dukes through time. These lists can easily be transposed to this page, after which the page can be eliminated. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ruy, agree on that. The links to other languages point to that arrangement—they are related to the duchy, not the dukes. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I am taking this discussion to the concerned article, post it there. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

well, it's a complete mess. The Duchy of Gascony was a duchy within Western Francia / medieval France, during about 848 to 1442. The Frankish march of Vasconia may be what this article was originally about, but now it is hard to tell.

We need a Duchy of Gascony article on the duchy in medieval France, and whatever early medieval Frankish polity (march? county? duchy?) this is also about should reside at Vasconia. --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, it's no mess, it just needs improvement and more definition like many other articles, your annotations are overdone. I agree that the name Gascony as used in French and on to English historiography hide realities quite apart. One solution can be the one you pointed of splitting the article from a disambiguation page into two main periods with different identities, but then debate over exact dates, continuation and overlapping would arise. It seems apparent that after the absorption into Aquitaine between 1039 and 1063, the native dynasties vanished and on the ground the Basque ethnic component was greatly reduced. The duchy integrated in the French dynamics. I doubt that a critical date can be set in 848, more so after the loyalty pledged by Sans Sancion - Sancho Sanchez to Charles the Bald circa 851, the last time allegiance is showed to any French king until the 11th century. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok..., I think I made my point, I'm trying to understand your solution for the disambiguation page and I'm open to it. I know the topic is tricky, the article is not mine all of it, but I will add citations myself in the coming days. You say "we need"..., but many people need other concepts too (like Christians vs Saracens, etc.). dynamic concepts changing continuously in historiography, as it happens in archaeology, and luckily so... I'm trying to clarify and fix the dispute, failing to engage in discussion I will proceed to remove tags I consider not relevant pointless, or bias. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Would anybody object to moving this article to "Duchy of Gascony", by far the more common term? Srnec (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a range of possible objections to this discussed by historians before, Collins to mention one of the latest in the English language academia. Basically, we are referring to Vasconia/Wasconia of the classic sources all the time, while late 10th century and later records (in Latin, in Gascon) refer to it as Guasconia too, certainly when they started to make reference to a geographic reality extending up to the Pyrenees, rather than an ethnic one. However, in Latin Vasconia and Wasconia was still in use. The king of England addressed to the people of Gascony as Vasconia and Vascones (XIII/XIV century).

It's not only about statistics, according to that no headway could be made in the wikipedia, since statistic results point to published and often old-fashioned theories more easily available, and that is not what we want to present the wikipedia readers with, right? Clearly count me out, updated info is an asset. Any move in the title should reflect immediately an explanation of the concept. I expect new comments on the issue. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to where Collins uses "Vasconia" in preference to "Gascony" when discussing the principality? He uses "Gascons"/"Gascony" from a very early point (7th century, I think) in The Basques. I do not see how medieval Latin usage is at all relevant. Srnec (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don´t say he prefers Vasconia, he points to the problems of the term and the concept. I haven´t got the book right now, he uses Gascony at least on a map of the 10th century and same period chapters, I doubt that he uses Gascony for the previous period. Clearly as of 824 the territories to the south of the Pyrenees, with a question mark on Gipuzkoa and northern tip of Navarre, are not part of the Duchy, or County... At any rate, as a useful and related geographic term, he uses it to describe a specific area to the south of the Garonne (e.g. Umayyad Pamplona after 714 used as a springboard to attack Gascony, in this case a geographic term). Iñaki LL (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 16:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, we need an article on the duchy of Gascony and the "duchy of Vasconia", whatever the vagaries of the Latin term Vasconia (and Wasconia, Guasconia), can refer to no other entity than the duchy known as Gascony. If we want, if we are willing to do the work, we could have a separate article on Vasconia, but since there are not two duchies we ought to go with the more common name. (Maybe you are thinking of this paper?) —Srnec (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, who is we??? It doesn´t sound very nice. I'm talking for myself, I do not represent any group, so I'd appreciate we keep matters transparent. Whoever has something to say is free to come and do so, whatever there is to discuss it must be shown strictly in this forum, I'm sure we agree on that. I haven´t got preconceived views if there is a spirits of discussion in accordance to the wikipedia, a collaborative project. Said that, I'm ready to find solutions.Iñaki LL (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This article might help you. ---- Zorion ^blabla 11:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting things on that web. However, I don´t know if it clarifies something in the present discussion. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

These parts don't help you ? You have all historical dates when and by who a terminology has been written.

Todos los vascos son conocidos tras la caída del Imperio romano con el apelativo de baskones (gentilicio de vasco, “basko”), por tanto es el primer apelativo para el conjunto del pueblo vasco y viene a identificar a nuestra primera entidad política conjunta: los habitantes del ducado Baskonia( Tal y como aclara Mikel Sorauren en su libro sobre el santo navarro (Ed.Pamiela 2005).)

En el siglo VII el cosmógrafo de Rávena (norte de Italia) incluye en su mapa Baskonia. Distinguía dos zonas, “Guasconia” o “Vasconum patria” (patria de los baskones) al norte de los Pirineos y “Spanoguasconia”, los baskones de la península hispánica, división que responde a la de las provincias romanas.

En su libro "Geografica" lo dice así: "La patria que se llama Baskonia (Guasconia), que era llamada por los antiguos aquitanos. Así mismo, junto a la misma Baskonia, está situada la patria que se llama Hispanobaskonia ("Spanoguasconiam").

La copia que se conserva es del siglo XIII, conocida como "Anónimo de Rávena”, y es la primer vez que aparece escrito "Gasconia" con "g". Posteriormente se usará más “Gasconia o Gascuña” en referencia a la Baskonia Ulterior (la parte norte de la Baskonia Continental). ...ETC.

The same article translated into French.

So many informations to get you in the right tracks. Good luck! -- Zorion ^blabla 13:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Basically it's about making all these useful data, related to an underlying ethnic reality (a duchy of the wascones, up to the threshold of the 9-11 centuries) compatible with the English language tradition and a well-established geographic term, Gascony. By the way, very enlightening maps. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox and sudden changes

Disinfoboxes

A box aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information; not all information can be so neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a timeline that substitutes for genuine history, it offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance. As a substitute for accuracy and complexity, a box trumps all discourse. —courtesy of User:Wetman

Errors and oversimplifications in the infobox:

1. A start date of c. 600 is an oversimplification. What we can say is that the first known duke is recorded around that time.
2. The dukes certainly treated Bordeaux as a capital for most of the period 977–1453. (Auch is sometimes cited as a capital, I believe on ecclesiastical grounds.)
3. I don't believe we have any evidence that Old Frankish was spoken in Gascony.
4. Describing the religion as Christianity is possibly wrong for the Basque period, since the period of the Basques' Christianisation is disputed.
5. Gascony was not a "feudal monarchy". Who today speaks of feudalism in the period 600–800, or even down to 1000? And in what way is it a "monarchy" at all in the late Middle Ages? This just seems like a classic case of forcing the issue into a box.
6. It is not clear that Felix was a duke of Gascony. Yes, he did rule Gascony.
   

What purpose does the box serve? Why on earth should we try to pick out the useful factoids in the history of an evolving polity that lasted close to one thousand years? —Srnec (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right, but I will go further, this unfortunate makeover (both in form and content) comes across as strange to modern historic discussions, not stripped of 19th and 20th century nation-state biases on a complex developing reality, but whose underlying fact is a Frankish dependency (initially dependent but always tending to detachment) for a people they tried to subdue, the Basques (Dux Wasconum, like with Saxons and Frisians to mention but two). This was changing along the centuries until the ethnic parameter vanished (10-12 century), and the polity broke up (10-11 century). The mention of "Old Frankish" or Kingdom of France here (king of France started at the turn of the millenium), as if it were a static reality, are pretty telling. A lot of bla-bla-bla and few facts sorry, this needs a good revision. In 1453 there was not even Gascony, it was Guyenne, and had little to do with the 10th or more so with the 7th century reality.

The main question remains the same, naming for the article, changed without notice or compromise and with disregard to the work of contributors. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I support the re-naming of the article but only if it goes along with a change in scope. There was no "Duchy Vaconia" distinct from the "Duchy of Gascony". Those terms are synonymous, but we could reasonably distinguish the region Vasconia of the early Middle Ages from the duchy which took its name from that region.

In 1453, Gascony existed, but it was united with Aquitaine (Guyenne et Gascogne) and the English did not consistently distinguish between them (except when they had to). As for "kingdom of France", it is at least inaccurate before the reign of Charles the Bald. I should add that treating Novempopulania as a predecessor of Gascony is also a bit misleading. And the selection of dukes was arbitrary, so I changed it to another arbitrary selection to make my point. Srnec (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know what your take on the name is, let's get it over and done with. If the name is to be written Gascony instead of Vasconia it needs a good explanation on naming, meaning and periods at the beginning of the article. As for "Kingdom of France", there is not an entity that may be called as such until the beginning of the 2nd millennium or the Capetian dinasty. After Sans Sancion's pledge of allegiance to Charles the Bald (approx. 850), nothing points to any bound to the far-off and weak Frankish king of Paris or whatever the seat of the government was, with whom they shared few common bounds, not language and not law. Claiming a suzerainty is gratuitous here, it was an autonomous duchy with links to Navarre, with one of duke even named "rex" with little certitude as to what that could mean anyway ( ["quidem Rex" (which from the context appears to refer to Sancho)]).

Agree on the use of Guyenne and Gascony, undefined. However, it seems that Guyenne was the most widely used term in the 14-15th century (preliminaries of the invasion of Navarre). This has been talked before, the English monarchs addressed to their subjects naming the area Vasconia.

The cohesion link up to the merge with Aquitaine (1053..., or 1032-1035) is the Basque element (yes, Biscarrosse is just the same name as that of Aragón Biscarrués, so whoever can´t see that, get over it), it is found in the names of the dukes and their relatives. I don´t object to relating it to Novempopulania, in fact it's a follow-up as I see it, but Vasconia was a wider reality. Its peoples were identified altogether as Wascones in the new situation after the fall of Rome, for their common or similar traditions and language(s) (cf the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, ultimately unified into English).

Now that we are on it, the duke name section is not very fortunate, actually I thought by now we were over with assumptions of existing "Greek colonies" (not appearing here, but heard of) and stuff, just to avoid stating that Gascony was inhabited by people speaking a Basque-related language. The same with person names, "Semen" is never to be found in Basque as equal to Latin "Simon", "Mitarra" is "Menditarra" or similar, a suffix widely used in Basque to nickname people, and not that twisted Arab "fear" or whatever it is..., but perhaps I'm extending too much. By the way, the map in the infobox is not accurate, there is no Bearn bordeing Navarre to the west, it´s Soule. Labourd should also be there, with or without Bayonne. The western Basque districts were part of Navarre. (Etc.) Iñaki LL (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I subscribe to Wetman's sentiment entirely, but I have little patience with editors who

1. do nothing to fix an article which has been completely broken for years and years
2. once I have taken the pain to turn the broken article into at least the beginnings of something encyclopedic, jump out of the woodwork and start throwing their weight around.

This is more to do with wikiquette than views on infoboxes. --dab (𒁳) 16:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to call bullshit. I was the only editor of the page Duchy of Gascony (an off-and-on redirect) when I decided recently to have it deleted so that I could work it up to a decent article from scratch. I had only begun to sketch a bare outline (perhaps the future lead) and list sources when you summarily moved that page to Duchy of Gascony/workpage and renamed this one. That page's "in progress" template was removed by another editor. Do you really want to discuss wikiquette now?

If you were talking about Iñaki, he has done a lot of work on this article in the past—much as I disagree with some of it. (You yourself first edited this article in November, while I was doing work on it in December 2006—when it was new—in the midst of a debate that was never really resolved. So who's got weight, those who have some experience with the difficulties in this area, or the guy who just walked in?) You were bold in adding the infobox, I reverted you and you refused to discuss. Now you have re-added it after having refused for some days to engage in the discussion I started. And you still have nothing to say in its defence. Srnec (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done! Bravo! A self-entitled hero of the wikipedia comes to save us! Well done! For a start you have removed verified information, it took hours for me to mend your inroad in the article. You are asking "kindly"??? What kind of respect are you showing? What respect? Nothing so far, you have come out of the blue to meddle in the article. I have been here adding citations and other content, I know of Srnec's tenacity and his edits that as he points for me I may like more or less but definitely add to the article. Maybe it's you don´t like the article as it is made by the contributors. Well, have your own blog with your own version, and be happy with it, I do have mine. However, let me tell you, this article while not the best and in need of style and a fluent narrative it's a good one when it comes to the early period, and I know quite a lot on the topic. Your "fixes" were fraught with inaccuracies I was trying to mend before you made your 2nd inroad. The map is full of inaccuracies too, and I numbered them.

And listen, it's not about dismissing whatever contribution you may have to make, that is not the question. You have made in other articles and I left them where you edited them, I considered them to be good or fair enough. Not so from you, you are failing to engage in dispute resolution, or in consensus search. O, is it time consuming for you? Well, it's taking more from me to repair it, hours. Failing to engage in discussion will result in the revert of the rest of the article with all good contributions.Iñaki LL (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The map is incorrect, will proceed to fix conspicuous inaccuracies when I get round to it. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)