Talk:Fraxinetum

message: I'd like a modern map of the area and an ancient Arab map where it is shown as an island. --Error (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: I have made many amendments to the article and I want to add some information because it is insufficient and few and some of it is very wrong Sarazxs123 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your edits as not improvements. Please explain what exactly is "messy" and what is "wrong". The article is not complete—most of Wikipedia isn't—but I do not see how it is messy and its sourcing is good. Srnec (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is very messy 

message: The source used for this edit says that the Umayyads established a base in Fraxinetum from which raids were mounted, not that Fraxinetum itself was a state. As such, the source does not support the edit.
The source also uses the word "Arab" throughout (even in its title: "Arab warship") for military actions carried out by Muslims, some of whom were not Arabs (such as in the case of the Umayyad armies, which contained many Berbers). It really shows that the author of the source, Angus Konstam (who seems to be more of a popular history writer anyway), is not an arabist, who would never make such a mistake. As such, Konstam's book is not a reliable source in this context, and should not be used here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraxinetum an "Arab Umayyad state"? 

message: That map has no sourcing. Although it may have value, I think its legend is untrustworthy. Srnec (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The map looks highly dubious to me, especially as it implies that Fraxinetum held a corridor through the alps for a whole generation, and that they settled/controlled Saint Gallen from 930 to 960: I think the map author may have exaggerated "infrequently raided territories" into "zones if control". --Enyavar (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the unsourced map. Before we can add a map like this at the very least we need the metadata at :File:Fraxinetum.png to give the precise sources on which it is based. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

text: They were added just ~six hours ago, so no, I have not yet reviewed those files. Is there a map in there, or do we need to read through dozens if not hundred text pages that were interpreted into a map? --Enyavar (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding more notes to follow up on my above post: The map document itself is missing references, as well as basic elements such as a distance scale and north arrow, which for me casts doubt on the rigor applied in producing it. (I confess to having cartography credentials and to being a stickler for documentation). The description text under the legend is not appropriate for a map in an encyclopedia. As I was surprised by the implication it gives of a thirty-year period of control of the Abbey of Saint Gall (Sankt Gallen -- oddly labeled "Saint Gal" on the map), as well as the 400-km corridor between it and Grenoble, I searched the two above-linked articles for mentions of the monastery. The first mentions it a few times, in conjunction with attacks on it in 939, and on nearby Disentis and Chur (on map = Grisons) in 936. The second article mentions a sacking of Sankt Gallen in 954, and attacks between 952 and 954; so far I cannot find the source given there for the 954 sack: "Die Alpenpasse im Mittelalter" (The Alpine Passes during the Middle Ages), by E. Oehlmann. Eric talk 19:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am familiar indeed with these sources. But this map merely provides a fanciful depiction of what the territories of the Fraxinetum emirate may have looked like. There are descriptions of mountain passes, yet no evidence of any administration, military occupation or noteworthy stay. This leads me to believe that these areas were raided, rather than ever controlled. It also coincides with the fact that Provence at the time was an important holding of many powerful post Frankish rulers, who make no mention of any significant conquests of the Saracens outside of their core territories. This could just be intentional, but when there is no source from either perspective it is fair to assume that Fraxinetum by no means possessed an apparatus of government that allowed them to hold these territories. Petarrc13 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for commenting. "Arab Presence" discusses the notion of incidents versus continuous occupation on pp 374-375, and again on p 381. "Arab/Muslim" Presence a bit on pp 71-72. Eric talk 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. The implication of this map heavily suggests that these were occupations or territories held, judging by the color scheme. I would also like to point out that this is misinformed as provence was not part of the Holy Roman Empire until somewhere around 1032. If we are to have a map of this political entity then it should be clear in what it portrays. Petarrc13 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I'm new to the topic of Fraxinetum, but but based on what I learned from perusing the provided sources today, I would be more inclined to have any map of the depicted region omit the shaded areas in favor of labeled points showing the locations of documented incidents and occupations. Eric talk 22:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I meant by . The map is clearly based on good sources, but its interpretation of them seems like original research. I have read the cited sources, as I'm the one who added them here. Srnec (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map