Jump to content

Talk:Zirid dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sss2sss (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 11 October 2020 (→zirid capital). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zirid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

zirid capital

In the last edit I've changed the date of the start of use of kairouan as a capital since 1014 seems unreasnable since 1014 mark the year of secessionof the hammadid dynasty also all the sites I've seen tend to mention that kairouan was the capital since the departure of the caliph to egypt https://www.qantara-med.org/public/show_document.php?do_id=596&lang=en https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zirid-Dynasty So please make sure you read this before trying to delete my last edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sss2sss (talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) You changed two dates, not just one. 2) None of those two sources says that kairouan was the capital of the Zirid dynasty. 3) It's only unreasonable if you don't take into account the fact that the Zirid dominion was divided into two territories, the central Maghreb and Ifriqiya, each with its own capital and governor appointed by the Zirid emir who moved back and forth between the two. 4) What those two sources (thin on details) don't tell you is that: a) the governor for Ifriqiya that was appointed by Buluggin before his departure wasn't a Zirid, he was an Arab who grew too powerful and ended up being killed by al-Mansur b) al-Mansur never visited Ifriqiya before 981. c) his son Badis was born in Ashir, the capital of the central Maghreb and of the Zirid dynasty (where the Zirid family was based). M.Bitton (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) how could I change a date without changing the other ? The should be a continuity between them 2)"The new master of the Maghreb left his tribal territory behind and settled into the Fatimid caliphal complex at Sabra Al-Mansouria, near Kairouan." this is the phrase I was interested in Again there is nothing that prove the opposite (maintaining achir as capital) either 3) the division of the zirid dynasty was only in 1014 (I thought the date I was talking about was before this year) 4)a) I know about that I'll discuss that later b) didn't al mansur rule start in 984 ? C) almost all of the first zirid rulers were born in or near achir not just badis but there's a difference between the zirids homerown (where they born or lived) and the capital from where they govern. This is the book of ibn khaldoun https://books.google.tn/books?id=pn5iDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%B1+%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86+%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%84&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZm8Dyq97rAhUHuRoKHUbvD3gQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%8A&f=false (sadly I can't find a version in english for free if you know one it would be generous from you to share it in the bibliography segment) there is one sentence in the book I was interested in "ورجع عنه بلكين من نواحي صفاقس فنزل قصر معد بالقيروان واضطلع بالولاية" Now why this phrase seem very meaningful ? I can explain why ; let's make some sort of analogy when a us president can be from anywhere in the country but when he is elected he leave his home and install himself in Washington DC and more precisely in the white house that's what would make Washington the capital (I know it is also the seat of government but what can we say for a medieval oligarchy ? The rule is only at the hands of one emir). See the similiarity ? But you may ask that he went to kairouan only to passify the region or to get the bay'a but that can'be true since first he didn't return to achir and for this "فنزل قصر المعد" as an analogy for the white house. What happened next is what makes weird and debatable. Bologhin soon left kairouan not for achir but to fight the rebel groups in the west which led us to a problem ; He did not change his residence or the capital he was just out for jihad and now we were left with two people to govern one in achir his son and crown prince And another arab that has nothing to do with zirid family governing in kairouan (not some kind of split since they were both loyal to bologhin) And that was your as saying why he would leave a foreigner in the capital and his son in a secondary town (as so achir would be the capital not kairouan) But you are forgetting that in ancient islamic states they nev. Don't let their sons (or relatives) governing the kingdom when they are out why ? Because they are afraid that he rebels on them and don't return it for them (they have have a motive and legetimicy ;the royal blood) as an example you can see the story about the death of abu al hassan from marinid dynasty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_al-Hasan_Ali_ibn_Othman. Now for al mansur he killed the governor of kairouan and designed another governor (not from the zirid) gave achir to another zirid family member and get out for jihad very similiar to his father. But in the last two lines you can see how he lived after that in kairouan not achir "ووفد على المنصور سنة اثنين وثمانين و ثلاثمائة بالقيروان فأكرمه...". Finaly the year 1014 as a change for the capital feels absolutly unreasonable. If it was even 1013 it won't be a problem but really 1014 ? That's the year when hammadid split and according to all the historians the badicid branch was the heir of the zirids. But how could that be real if hammadid are the one who got achor won't that make them the real heirs ? Also historians don't mention anything about badis changing the capital or his expulsion from achir. If there was no clear and direct thing that proves kairouan as a capital equally there was not for achir so. I hope you've got my point. Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate it. Cordially from a friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sss2sss (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed what I said about the two capitals and the capital of the "dynasty". Anyway, here's what Hady Roger Idris (the authority on the subject) has to say (taken from the source[1] already cited in the article):

Les trois premiers Zirides, avant tout souverains d'Asïr, guerroient sans cesse à l'ouest et confient l'Ifrïqiya à un vice-roi arabe, mais la vocation ifrïqiyenne de la dynastie se dessine de bonne heure. Elle a pour conséquence une recrudescence de la pression des Zanâta qui, sous Bâdis (996-1016), déferlent victorieusement de Tiaret à Tripoli. Il les mate, non sans peine et grâce surtout à son oncle Hammâd, qui pacifie le Magrib Central et y fonde la Qal'a (1007-8). La fin du règne est marquée par la rébellion de Hammâd (1015), qui reconnaît les 'Abbàsides, et par les premiers massacres de si'ites, notamment à Béja et à Tunis.

As for the date, 1014 is the year when the conflict between Hammad and Badis started. Personally, I would change it to 1016, the year of the death of Badis, the separation of the two territories and the beginning of the two new dynasties: the Hammadid dynasty and the Ifriqiyan zirid dynasty. M.Bitton (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Les trois premiers zirides

I think he means by those ziri, bologhin and al mansur. So we can exclud ziri from this list (he did not live in the period we are talking about and we agree that he had achir as his capital). Now what about bologhin and his son al mansur we know that they were governors of achir when they were the heirs of the throne . But none after becoming a "king".for example bologhin

Quand, en 972, le calife fatimide Al-Mu’izz quitte le Maghreb pour l’Egypte, il confie l’administration de l’Ifriqya à Buluggin, le fils de Ziri. Celui-ci quitte Achir pour s’installer à Kairouan, mais il va garder des liens étroits avec Achir où sa famille va demeurer

http://www.mammeri100.dz/index.php/fr/voir-plus/32-achir-la-capitale-de-ziri-ben-menad
he sure left kairouan to fight the rebels in which he died. That's why heleft an arab governor in ifriqiya. And we can say the same thing for al mansur he did change the governor of kairouan and gave achir and tahert to his brothers. Again he after that lived in kairouan. As for badis he was not even the governor of achir. He even had a at times of his father's death he only got kairouan and eastern ifriqiya and left his uncles in the west. And I'm sure you should make a look at this

when the fatimids left them in control for north africa the zirid dynasty took kairouan as their capital

https://books.google.tn/books?id=bXjXDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123&dq=zirid+capital+kairouan&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjo_cbCwujrAhUWSxUIHVpfCzIQ6AEwAnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
And how could 1016 make sens if 1014 didn't ? Did it went like this for badis ? "I do not even have achir but anyways it's my capital" Sss2sss (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken. By the "first three Zirids", he means Buluggin, al-Mansur and Badis. This is clearly stated in his book about the Zirids.
What Hady Roger Idris said about the first three sovereigns and their capital is crystal clear and I certainly see no reason to ignore what the acknowledged authority on the Zirids has to say and listen to what non specialists say in passing. M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

his son al mansur first moved into the old aghlabid palace in raqqada, then established himself "definitly" in Mansuriya, where he soon became known for his magnificence...

source[2] Sss2sss (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in my previous comment, what Hady Roger Idris said about the first three sovereigns and their capital is crystal clear. I certainly see no reason to ignore what the authority on the Zirids has to say and analyze what non specialists say in passing. M.Bitton (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
how could we consider something that doesn't clearly use the word capital as cristal clear ? And how could we consider one author more authentic than the others ? Sss2sss (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This work was published by the university of tiaret. And you can read the page 41

لكن على الرغم من الطابع العسكري لفترة حكم يوسف فإن ذلك لم يمنعه من الاهتمام

بالتنظيم الإداري لدولته، وسعى إلى ذلك عبر تعيين عماله على الولايات، وإدخال تعديلات على

حدودها، خاصة منها الولايات الغربية، حيث ألغى ولاية المسيلة وضم الجهة الجنوبية منها إلى

تاهرت، والجهة الشمالية إلى أشير، واتخذ من مدينة المنصورية قرب القيروان قاعدة حكمه.

now that's what I would consider as "cristal clear". I mean come on it's obviousSss2sss (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for me to repeat what I said. If you want to change the date, you need to seek consensus for that. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: Apparently Alinaili30 agrees with me. And when you changed his edit you've said that the topic is already solved in "talk" page while apparently it is not. And saying that kairouan was the capital was kairouan in 972 was even there in older versions of this page before being edited without a reference.
Side question ; why did you reverted my first edit ? I just changed the reference to the english page of qantara instead of the french since this page is in english. If you agree that the reference should be in english please fix it. Sss2sss (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: As for the viceroy argument you gave here is what ababdallah laroui says

Balkin was feeling lonely in his new kingdom and longed for Asher, so he installed one of the Aghlabid princes as a ruler and he did not come to Mansuriyya except occasionally

— histoire du maghreb
(Translated via google since the only version I have is in arabic). And he further go to say

When his son Al-Mansour succeeded him, he first settled one of the palaces of Bani Al-Aghlab in Raqqada, before he moved to Al-Mansuriyah and settled there

so you can see how the capital change was permanent.Sss2sss (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't have to be in English, but if you insist on changing it, do it properly and change the access date and the archive url as well.

when you changed his edit you've said that the topic is already solved in "talk". I really hate being misquoted. Here's what I said[3] and here's their response[4].

I suggest you read my last three comments, and please, don't ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why limit yourself with a french site when the creators of the site were already generous and gave us an english translation ? Do you think everyone in english wikipedia are supposed to be 'francophone' ? If it misses some kind of archivage, it is supposed for the 'extended confirmed user' to fix it not just discard the edit (since I am new to this and I don't even know why a ref should be archived).
when I've changed his edit you clearly stated that I need to seek consensus for my edit,wich is the same for you (since the discussion page is still not solved).and when he changed the date you just reverted it as if it was solved (that's what I'm talking about and not what you've said) I prefer to stick with the original wich clearly states that kairouan 972 or to just put a question mark to point that it is disputed. But what you are doing is just trying to impose your opinion. Sss2sss (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The version, which has been there since 2016, states 1014. Therefore, the onus to change it is entirely on you.
You are free to talk about what you want, but when you precede it with "what you said", you attribute your thoughts to someone else. That's not acceptable.
Rather than go around in circles, I will invite "Alinaili30" (mentioned above) as well as "Kabyle20" (the editor who introduced the date and the sources) and see what they have to say. @Alinaili30 and Kabyle20: your thoughts would be appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I very much appreciate your demand for them to contribute this discussion since it clearly needs more opinionsSss2sss (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zirid_dynasty&oldid=982992891"