Talk:Mauro-Roman Kingdom/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 15:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear! Before the review starts something I would like to comment on is that source #11, Merrills 2017, lacks a page number reference. I used the version of the book available on Google Books (link), which for some reason omits page numbers. The relevant section for this source would be a section in Chapter 4 of the book that specifically deals with the Mauro-Roman Kingdom, but there is no way for me to see which particular pages this section takes up.Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could I see a quote from a source that clearly states that the kingdom of Altava is a rump state established after the defeat of Garmul? I have trouble to believe that the "Mauro-Roman" kingdom and Altava are not one and the same. LeGabrie (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing and stuff is a bit difficult for me at the moment as my computer just broke, but from what I can gather (I will see if I can find specific quotes down the line) the Mauro-Roman Kingdom designates the realm ruled by the "Kings of the Moors and Romans" that stretched through most of old Mauretania. This kingdom collapses in the wake of Garmul's defeat and death which is pretty clear from the map depicting the area later on that you appear to have uploaded (it's hard to link it because I'm typing this on my phone but I'm sure you know which one I'm referring to) where "Altava" is tiny compared to the kingdom Garmul appears to have ruled. To be honest I am a little confused but the article as it is now is how I understood it. Do you have a source that states that the two kingdoms are one and the same? As a "rump state" is a "remnant of a previously larger state" it seemed to fit here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially it's your own interpretation of my map and the map by بلهواري محمد فيصل? There would be several problems with that. First that's a form of synthesis. Second, بلهواري محمد فيصل didn't specify what source he used for his map. Only with a source provided we can assume that his work is even legit and not just completely made up. Third, concerning my map it is important to point out that afaik it was not meant to depict the political situation after 567. Hence the display of the "Kingdom of Cabaon". Cabaon was a Berber chief thriving during the reign of king Thrasamund (r. 496-523). It should also be noted that the extensions of the kingdoms on my map are very tentative; they might have been larger in reality. "Do you have a source that states that the two kingdoms are one and the same?" No, but I also haven't seen a source stating that there were two kingdoms in the first place, including the whole "rump-state-after-Garmul" thing. If you find one please provide it. LeGabrie (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mauro-Roman Kingdom is quite obscure and it is hard to find decent sources on it. The article as it is now is the best result I was capable of producing from the sources I found. A few of them describe the defeat of Garmul as resulting in a collapse of the kingdom (with a major consequence being that the coast is reincorporated by the Byzantines). There does not appear to be a Mauretania-spanning kingdom after his defeat, if you can source there being one I am welcome to accept it. Perhaps this should take some more looking into, but the realm ruled by Caecilius in the 600s appears to have been a confederacy of many tribes and petty kingdoms (as suggested by that leadership of the entire thing passed to the leader of a different tribe/kingdom after his defeat) and quite different from how things looked prior to Garmul. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that we don't even know the political situation of Mauretania before 578. Some authors claim there were several kingdoms, like for example Christian Courtois, from whom I copied the map. Then there are others, claming what there was one (so essentially as you understood), like Gabriel Camps in his "Rex gentium Maurorum et Romanorum. Recherches sur les royaumes de Maurétanie des VIe et VIIe siècles" (1984). In my new book on the Vandal kingdom (2016) the author speaks of Berber kingdoms though, so the thesis of Camps doesn't seem to be commonly accepted.
What happened after Garmul is even more obscure. According to Camps some Jeddars (mausoleums) date to the seventh century, which would imply that there was atleast some form of higher state administration, perhaps even the continuation of the "Regnum Maurorum et Romanorum". For now I think the best would be to merge "Mauro-Roman kingdom" and "Kingdom of Altava" though. LeGabrie (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging them should only be done if there is some reliable source that spells out clear political continuity between them. As you say the subject is quite obscure and historical sources are lacking. Perhaps the article should focus on the concept of a "mauro-roman kingdom" and mention competing views on the political situation and historiography? Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "Kingdom of Altava" article is based on the premise that there was some type of splinter state after the defeat of Garmul. If there isn't a source confirming that then the article has no right to exist imo. The stuff happening after Garmul can still be covered in the entry for the "Mauro-Roman Kingdom". LeGabrie (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think there needs to be some source on that the two kingdoms are one and the same if they are to be treated as such, but as soon as I get my computer back I'll see what I can do. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wickham briefly discusses the possibility of one large Berber kingdom versus several smaller entities. Hope you can read it (page 337): https://books.google.de/books?id=q04qPNZasbIC&pg=PR21&hl=de&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=snippet&q=christian%20courtois%20make&f=false LeGabrie (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back now, I will have a look at the source at some point in the next few days. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

GA Criteria

GA Criteria:

1
1.a Y

1.b Y
2
2.a Y

2.b Y

2.c Y

2.d Y (6.5%)
3
3.a Y

3.b Y
4
4.a Y
5
5.a Y
6
6.a Y

6.b Y

No DAB links Y
No dead links Y
No missing citations Y

Prose Suggestions[edit]

Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.

The Mauro-Roman Kingdom (Latin: Regnum Maurorum et Romanorum) was an independent Christian Berber kingdom centered on the city of Altava and controlling... suggest:
- The Mauro-Roman Kingdom (Latin: Regnum Maurorum et Romanorum) was an independent Christian Berber kingdom centered on the city of Altava which controlled...
His defeat in 578 AD marks the end of the Mauro-Roman Kingdom, which was fragmented and partially reincorporated into the Roman Empire. suggest:
- {{His defeat in 578 AD led almost immediately to the end of the Mauro-Roman Kingdom, which was fragmented and partially reincorporated into the Roman Empire.}}
and usually acknowledged the nominal suzerainty of the Roman Emperors suggest:
- and often nominally acknowledged the suzerainty of the Roman Emperors

@Ichthyovenator: That is all my suggestions, apologies for the long wait, passing now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have implemented your suggestions! Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]