Kingdom of Portugal and Galicia

[KaiserChicken]

Nationalistic urges? Speak for yourself, you're the nationalist here. If I was a Portuguese nationalist, I would do everything to hide the fact that a Spaniard has held the title of King of Portugal before Afonso Henriques declared independence in 1143.

He did not receive the title of Count of Portugal from Ferdinand I. I am 100% sure of that. In 1065, when he became King of Galicia and Portugal, there was already a Count of Portugal: Nuno Mendes, of the house of Vímara Peres, who held that title from 1050 to 1071. In 1071, he rebelled against Garcia and only then did the latter manage to get the title of "Count of Portugal".

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I ask myself, Kaiserchicken, why would you want to ad a king of Portugalizia when you mention in your first post that it was annexed by Castilia in 1071 and after that there never was a united ruler over Portugal and Galicia. (in CK era of course)

The kingdom of Portugal appeard again in the 12th century this time without Galicia.

So should Portugalizia be a noncreatable kingtitle ? Since it would be weird to have Galicia be part of the standard kingdom of Portugal when it only had that lands for 4 years. And the standard kingdom setup is the same for all scenarios ?

Or maybe you want to have a king of Galicia and Portugal in 1066, but Galicia is part of the standard kingdom of Leon and the rest of the standard kingdom of Portugal ?

So it is not really clear to me what you want ?

 

[unmerged(21937)]

While debating, please do so without insulting each other personally. This as an advance warning, since I smell a potential for going to that in this thread.

 

[KaiserChicken]

I ask myself, Kaiserchicken, why would you want to ad a king of Portugalizia when you mention in your first post that it was annexed by Castilia in 1071 and after that there never was a united ruler over Portugal and Galicia. (in CK era of course)

The kingdom of Portugal appeard again in the 12th century this time without Galicia.

So should Portugalizia be a noncreatable kingtitle ? Since it would be weird to have Galicia be part of the standard kingdom of Portugal when it only had that lands for 4 years. And the standard kingdom setup is the same for all scenarios ?

Or maybe you want to have a king of Galicia and Portugal in 1066, but Galicia is part of the standard kingdom of Leon and the rest of the standard kingdom of Portugal ?

So it is not really clear to me what you want ?

I just proposed the creation of a Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal for the sake of historicity. Since there had been a Kingdom of Spanish Galicia in an earlier patch, I never thought it would be so much problematic to create this Kingdom.

However, I agree that this would not be much functional, hence I agreed with Finellach before: it would be easier, and rather correct, to put the Counties of Portugal and Galicia (whose territories in the latest patch correspond to the Duchies of Braganza and Galicia, respectively) as vassals of the Kingdom of Leon. That was the geopolitical situation from 1093 onwards (when Henry and Raymond of Burgundy were granted the Counties of Portugal and Galicia).

In my opinion, the worst part of the current geopolitical display is the existance of the Duchy of Braganza. That was only created in the 15th century.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I just proposed the creation of a Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal for the sake of historicity. Since there had been a Kingdom of Spanish Galicia in an earlier patch, I never thought it would be so much problematic to create this Kingdom.

Creating new kingdoms almost always leads to this, that is why, Paradox won't change anything in the kingdom setup for the 1.05 patch.

 

[Lucius Sulla]

Lucius you are wrong, you have been proven wrong and you don't want to admit that.

Huh... just because you say so?

I still have not seen a single evidence that there was a kingdom of Portugal in 1066. There was a county of Portugal, which is a quite different matter.

I defy any of you to bring out any document of the time supporting that claim, any royal seal, anything that would show me that the tittle of portugal in or before 1066 was that of a kingdom.

 

[KaiserChicken]

Given my geographical location, that is virtually impossible for me (I live in the Azores). But since you are much closer to Galician Libraries and Study Centres than I am, I challenge you to present me with evidence that Garcia II was only Kingdom of Galicia, and not of Galicia and Portugal.

 

[Lucius Sulla]

Given my geographical location, that is virtually impossible for me (I live in the Azores). But since you are much closer to Galician Libraries and Study Centres than I am, I challenge you to present me with evidence that Garcia II was only Kingdom of Galicia, and not of Galicia and Portugal.

I am not making a point. You are. It's you the one who has to prove that something that I have never found in any book or webpage prior to seeing it into this forum, that is, that there was a Crown of Portugal in 1066, is true. I live in the mediterranean coast, by the way. I guess I can show you images of the royal seal of the Crown of Aragon in 1066. You should not have too much difficulty in finding a seal or documentation with a explicit reference to the crown of Portugal, if it would exist, since I don't have too much difficulty in finding likewise information regarding any of the rest of the iberian crowns in the XI century.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Huh... just because you say so?

No, because you have been proven otherwise.

I still have not seen a single evidence that there was a kingdom of Portugal in 1066. There was a county of Portugal, which is a quite different matter.

Thats because you don't want to see it.

I defy any of you to bring out any document of the time supporting that claim, any royal seal, anything that would show me that the tittle of portugal in or before 1066 was that of a kingdom.

Do you want perhaps an interview with Garcia? :rofl:
Wait a bit....I just need to prepeare my time machine.

 

[Lucius Sulla]

No, because you have been proven otherwise.

Thats because you don't want to see it.

Do you want perhaps an interview with Garcia? :rofl:
Wait a bit....I just need to prepeare my time machine.

And still you fail to point to any particular evidence. Is it so difficult to point to something... a bit like this: "the kingdom of Portugal existed in 1066 because it is clearly stated in Liber Regis Portugalensis, a chronicle of the XIII century" or "there had to be a kingdom of Portugal in 1066 becuase there is a royal seal of Portugal in 1050". But, hey... wait... I have not seen any of that! Just go figure... I wonder where I have been proven otherwise. Maybe your lack of arguments is the reason you have to attack me personally in such a rude manner?

Is there a need to insult me personally? I thought there was a prewarning of a mod.

Mmm... now that I remember... is there a possibility that you were that guy so insistant on having the kingdom of Navarra recreable in other discussion? I remember somebody who was mad to have Vizcaya under the crown of Navarra... Was that you by any chance? I remember his fight for inexistant evidence was as ferocious as the one you demonstrate now.

 

[unmerged(45754)]

I have no strong opinions either way, but Lucius is correct, you are making a claim, thus the burden of proof lies upon you.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Lucius you are the one who is rude...you accuse others of lying and being nationalist when it is you who shows these traits. Get a grip man....

And Kaiser already made "the burden of proof" you just don't want to accept it because it doesn't suits you...

 

[Gwalcmai]

While I tend to agree with Lucius that Portugal was just one of the counties of the Kingdom of Galicia (at least I can't really remember any references to the title "King of Portugal" prior to Afonso Henriques), one of the arguments Lucius presents (that the kings of Portugal never claimed lands north of the border) is not quite right. The first king of Portugal had a bit of a tendency to invade Galicia, actually.

For example, from the Galician site quoted by KaiserChicken:

# 1169 d. C.- Fernando II, apresa o rei de Portugal en Badaxoz, permutará-la súa liberdade polos territorios e aquél conquistará en Galiza.

------------ Translation for the Galician impaired ------------

1169 - Fernando II captures the king of Portugal in Badajoz, he will exchange his freedom for the territories he had captured in Galicia

Edit: One could, of course, imagine that Garcia indeed stiled himself "king of Galicia and Portugal", but meaning that he was king of a territory covering Galicia and Portugal, not that he was ruler of two distinct kingdoms. It would make him sound important, like the kings of Portugal calling themselves "king of Portugal and the Algarve"

 

[unmerged(45754)]

Why would it "Not suit" me?

I have no strong interest in either one, I'm an American and my ancestors are from northern Europe. It matters not an ounce to me. However Lucius desires for some sort of seal is perfectly reasonable, and the burden of proof does fall upon Kaiser, as he is making a claim. His claim has been disputed and he needs to have more evidence for his position. I assure you, either way wouldn't particularly bother me at all, and I am not saying that Kaiser's position is false. Just that I agree with Lucius that the burden of proof is upon him and he needs more evidence.

 

[KaiserChicken]

Here are another two relevant bibliographic sources which mention Garcia as being "King of Galicia and Portugal":

História de Portugal - Tomo 1, José Mattoso, Editorial Estampa

A Herança Genética de Dom Afonso Henriques, Luiz de Mello Vaz de São Payo, Centro de Estudos de História da Família da Universidade Moderna do Porto

I'll pay a visit to the Library and to the Regional Archive tomorrow, to see if I can find anything else. But the supposition that some of our most respected Historians and Genealogists are wrong seems to be a bit strange to me.

 

[Grosshaus]

If you can´t discuss things properly without insulting each other then better not to discuss at all. I´d issue official warnings and such but my boss wouldn´t like me spending all that time on some gaming forum, consider yourself all equally warned.

Thread closed

 

[Grosshaus]

Feel free to continue, just do it in a different manner than yesterday.

 

[KaiserChicken]

I have been discussing this matter privately with Lucius. After some research I did yesterday, I'm starting to think I might be wrong. It's mainly not my fault, anyway, given the countless historical and bibliographical references which mention the "Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal". Garcia was indeed King of Galicia, having adopted later, after the Portuguese rebellion, the title of "King of all Portuguese". I am therefore sorry for all the mess I caused with this claim (which was nonetheless supported by sources which I considered solid and viable).

Anyway, the Duchy of Braganza is still an issue. Is there any possibility to do something about it?

 

[Zebedee]

What are you suggesting for it to be changed to? Braganza was created 1442 so I'm interested in seeing what would be a viable alternative.

 

[Havard]

Anyway, the Duchy of Braganza is still an issue. Is there any possibility to do something about it?

Is there any viable alternative?