Talk:Nuño Rasura

King Froila

Is there any indication from the Chronicon which Fruela might be meant, i.e. what time period the Chronicon thinks it is speaking of? Fruela I or Fruela II? Srnec (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a holdover from the previous edit. The Chronicon was probably just 'confused'. Agricolae (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Lucas's version, which appears (genealogically) to be referring to Fruela II, but that might just be Lucas's way of making all things fit, so I left the ambiguity in the footnote. Srnec (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also put it up for "Did you know..." here, if you'd like to take a look. Srnec (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old sources

How exactly is 1991 an old source? -- Esemono (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuño is a legend, as Fletcher says, quite clearly, on page 59. Incorporate whatever you can about the legend, but do not confuse it with history. Srnec (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher, 1991 is not an old source. Washington Irving, 1867 is, as is Nathaniel Armstrong Wells, 1846. These old sources do not reflect the current scholarly consensus: they are not only old, they are dated. (e.g. Wells is giving a date when Gonzalo Nunez became count. Gonzalo Nunez is now accepted never to have existed - he was invented to link Fernan Gonzalez to Nuno Rasura.) Fletcher's material, if it is to be used (and I see no reason it shouldn't), needs to be used in a manner that carefully distinguishes legend from history, and without the obsolete 19th century credulous 'history' that formed an integral part of the edit I reverted. Agricolae (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, Castile is currently central modern-day Spain, but the territory Nuno supposedly controlled was not modern Castile, but about the northern third of Old Castile, bordering the Bay of Biscay. Agricolae (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]