Talk:Spanish March

message: This material is more thoroughly and accurately treated at Marches#Catalonia and the "Spanish Marches" where is benefits from a broader context. I'd like to see this entry made a redirect. I don't want to act rashly, so let's talk about it for a month or two. --Wetman 22:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the reverse would make more sense: prune the big article by moving most of that info over here. The Welsh Marches and the German marks all have their own articles. The Spanish March deserves no less. Bastie 20:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "Pruning" shouldn't mean cannibalizing, so I've moved all the relevant material here, to be the Main Article: a briefer version remains at Marches, part of explaining what "marches" are. Now edit away! --Wetman 03:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This article is poorly sourced and in falls in some major errors, specially regarding the western Pyrenees.
First of all there was never ever an entity called county of Sanguesa. I wonder where did such concept was invented.
Second, Pamplona was only an political entity after 832 (third Battle of Roncevaux Pass), when it seceded from the Duchy of Vasconia, temporarily under firm control by Carolingian Franks, with the help of their Muslim allies of Tudela: the Banu Qasi. At that point Pamplona was born not as any dependent county but as a sovereign kingdom (see Kingdom of Navarre).
Third, Jaca, most commonly known as Aragon, was conquered by the Count of Vasconia Citerior, Aznar and eventually united to Pamplona. Its very mention in the concept of Marca Hispanica, the territories of the Eastern Pyrenees subject to Frankish control, is totally misleading. Even if Count Aznar was one of the few Basque monarchs that acknowldeged Frankish overlordship, his domains were part of the historical Duchy of Vasconia and not of the Spanish Mark.
Fourth there's no empirical reason to draw the Western Basques separated from Pamplona nor to call Vasconia "Aquitania", when this last term refered in the Middle Ages to the lands north and east of the Garonne. 
In brief, the Marca Hispanica had its westernmost outpost at Sobrarbe, the lands west of it were part of the sometimes diffuse concept of Vasconia, an older Duchy and in the period of the creation of the MH, subject to continuous disputes between Franks, Muslims and Basques. The product of these struggles was the birth of a polity called Kingdom of Pamplona. Eventually northern Basques also get rid of the Frankish yoke but by then they were becoming Gascons (romance speakers) for the most part.
Note for documentation of what I'm saying, look at the footnotes/bibliography in the linked articles. --Sugaar 13:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pamplona, Sanguesa and Aragon (Jaca) 

message: Hi there. Just dropping a note here about the ever-so-sensitive topic of the Marcher Counts being called "Catalan". I don't want a storm to break loose over this, but is there actually any source whatsoever that associates these Counts with "Catalans"? Labelling areas and peoples with incorrect nationalities is extremely misguiding and confusing, especially when these labels are still used today in different contexts. I've taken the liberty of putting a "reference needed" tag at the end of "The title came to be applied to Catalonia before the start of the Reconquista", since I feel this assertion would need concrete referencing. I've also tagged the very general assertion of  "and indeed is sometimes used to mean Catalonia alone" (the question being, by whom?). I've also made mention of the fact that the "Catalan Counties" referred to are the Marcher Counties in the territory of modern Catalonia. 
And on a secondary note, I really think the editors of this article should revise that sentence stating "The region became the Kingdoms of Navarre, Aragón and Catalonia". As far as I know, historically there never was a Kingdom of Catalonia, but rather the County of Barcelona was integrated into the Kingdom of Aragon. If there's a historical source stating a "Kingdom of Catalonia", it would need to be cited.
I'd also eliminate the term "Spanish March" at the intro paragraph, for contextual reasons again. I don't think it's at all accurate from a historical perspective. 
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not another pro-Spanish pain in the backside trying to undermine any nationalistic feelings. I'm all for current, modern independence claims. However,I am a historian, and if this is an historical article, I think we should really stick to history and make an effort not to slip into political issues. Nationalism is a modern/contemporary history phenomenon, with its political and philosophical currents rooted in modern times. Applying its framework to ancient/medieval history only produces nonsense; let's not allow the Spanish related topics in the English Wikipedia fall into the sub-standard, pamphletary quality of the Spanish version. 
Cheers! :) Dr Benway 14:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where would the English-speaking reader look first? That's your sensible article title. The historic term "Spanish March" might need further explication, rather than suppressing it. A report on modern localist feelings about the term "Spanish Marches", if properly sourced, would make a useful addition at the  bottom  of the article. --Wetman 21:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very good point, absolutely agree. After all the term "Spanish Marches" is very extended among the english speakers, as opposed to "Marca Hispánica" which is the standard Spanish term AFAIK. *nodnods* Dr Benway 07:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalan 

message: Some time ago I proposed a merge with the Catalan Counties article. My reason was that I hadn't found any references to these "Catalan Counties" in any reliable sources, wether in texts or maps. After taking a careful look I did begin to see usage of the term in several history books. I still think the merge would be beneficial, but the main reasons that motivated the initial proposal are no longer valid :P Cheers! ;) Dr Benway 08:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Merge Tag 

message: 'This oath of loyalty weakened with each successive Carolingian and, later, Ottonian successor.' Shouldn't this just be 'Carolingian'?  41.241.122.139 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Structure 

message: How would this translate into Russian.  Recently I read the Russian translation for Cape Horn (Мыс Горн) and I was wondering if this "Мыс" is similar to "Marca" (border)  maybe some of you can find an old Soviet to clarify this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.218.221 (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  russian translation? 

message: Shouldn't the article/page name on English wiki be Spanish March, considering that this is the English name of 'Marca Hispanica'? 134.255.23.82 (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a set name, not Spanish, it is the original Latin. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish March 

message: Four of the five references cited for this page call it the Spanish March. Most reliable English sources that I can find call it the Spanish March. Calling it Marca Hispanica seems contrary to Wiki naming policy. What's the rationale for calling it Marca Hispanica? Glendoremus (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Spanish March