Talk:Banu Qasi

message: It's evident that Banu Qasi is a much simpler and self-evident title than "House of Banu Qasi". Please, whoever who moved it, read WP:NAME. 
I'm moving back. --Sugaar (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unjustified move 

message: The 'First rise to prominence' section has the following, "Évariste Lévi-Provençal in 1990 was the first to say that . . . ."   Lévi-Provençal died in 1956. I am not sure what the origin of the mistake is, but as it reads the text is obviously erroneous.  50.37.106.79 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic text 

message: Is it known what this kingdom called itself, its official name?--Sıgehelmus  (Talk) |д=) 15:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The term 'Third King of Hispania' was being used metaphorically.  Technically, when called this Musa ibn Musa's title was Governor of the Upper March, a frontier buffer region set up to protect the Emirate from the Franks, under a weak Emir at Cordoba.  He became so powerful and autonomous that they called him that, but it only took one big defeat for the Emir to regain the upper hand and depose him from the governorship, and force the family into eclipse.  Over most of the period they held the formal title Wāli (administrator) of Huesca, which was one of several subdivisions of the Upper March centered on that town, but at various times they also controlled Zaragoza, Tudela, Lleida and even Toledo, which was the main city in the Middle March.  There was never a 'kingdom', per se.  Agricolae (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you , that is very intriguing. Do you recommend any books where I can read more about this state, or even Visigoths converting to Islam in general? Also given your info, do you think the infobox needs revision? Is there any autonym that can be assigned to this state, or is Banu Qasi sufficient in its dynastic designation?--Sıgehelmus  (Talk) |д=) 23:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the name for the state is that it wasn't really a state at all.  Think about something like Normandy under the early Capetians.  Depending on the vicissitudes of the royal family and the ducal family, they could act either as an all-but independent entity, or they could be under the thumb of the crown.  In this case it is even more extreme, because their technical title as governor of the Upper March, was appointed, and any time the Emir thought the governor was getting too strong, and when the Emir was strong enough, he would try to revoke the title and give it to a competing family.  Amid this, though, the individual families on the Upper March had their own power bases, usually being the predominant family of one of the coras, and no matter how much else they lost, they would retain this core state (or really, estate).  It is anachronistic to even talk about the Banu Qasi having a state, yet there has been a tradition among historians of referring to it as such.  This all went away upon his death.  All but one of the coras were given to other families, and after his sons rose back to prominence, each ruled a different cora and they acted sometimes as allies, but sometimes as competitors, and the same applied to the other families on the March, the Banu Amrus/Banu Shabrit and the Banu Tujibi.  So, do you call it a state when it was really just one man's accumulation of extreme power?  You get to the 10th century and the King of Pamplona to the north and the Emir to the south take turns swatting them aside, while the different branches of the family fight each other for the remnants.  The date given for the 'end' is just when the last of them was ambushed and killed, but any resemblance to a state was long a thing of the past.  Anyhow, the best work on the Banu Qasi would be Lorenzo Jiménez book cited here, or if you want a shorter read, the article by Cañada Juste.  I don't know anything in English that does more than mention the family in passing.  I don't know of a good study on conversion, which really involves two totally distinct subjects - the actual conversion of the Visigoths, vs. the traditions of the Iberian Muslims about their ancestors' conversion, the two being quite different. Agricolae (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autonym/official name?