Talk:Fraxinetum

Maps

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)

The article is very messy

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)

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)

Fraxinetum an "Arab Umayyad state"?

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)

Map

@Userd898: That map has no sourcing. Although it may have value, I think its legend is untrustworthy. Srnec (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Petarrc13, Apaugasma, and Enyavar:, Have you looked at the sources now provided by Userd898 at commons:File:Fraxinetum.png? Here are links to pdfs of the two articles on JSTOR. You may need to have access via the Wikipedia Library in order to view them, so check there if these don't open for you. I am searching through them now:

• The Arab Presence in France and Switzerland in the 10th Century
• The Arab/Muslim Presence in Medieval Central Europe

Eric ^talk 17:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is what I meant by useful but untrustworthy. 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)

I think that the map that @Grufo: now removed ( was actually okay where it was. It is important not to show this depiction at the start of the article, and the note of caution is also very important as long as the map key remains unchanged. The demand "since it is object of a political campaign, we should only accept peer-reviewed maps" goes a bit too far in my opinion, since there are two more maps remaining in the article that are also self-made and also not been published in peer-reviewed sources. The disputed map was inserted as a well-meant effort by its creator, and I do not suppose that creator has anything to do with the other account who tries to shoehorn that ludicrous other map into the article.

@Smec:, since you are more familiar with the sources: what are the changes that need to be made in the map to have it fit better? Right now I am thinking about rephrasing the bottom-right text in a more neutral way and amending the map key: "Conquests" would be "Campaigns". "Confirmed settlements" would be "settlements mentioned as raided or controlled". The two darkest gradient color-rectangles could be relabelled into "areas controlled" and the lighter gradient colors could be "areas raided".

Would those changes suffice to render the map more acceptable, or does the map-image itself contain misrepresentations of the (temporary) influence of F? --Enyavar (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, what you say about the key is correct. I'd probably eliminate the arrows entirely and the "capital territory". The phrase "Emirate of Fraxinetum" also needs to be retired. I have not checked that the dates on the map are correct and i don't necessarily trust them. Srnec (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree with Srnec. --Grufo (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Enyavar @Srnec, I have found a book on Fraxinet that contains two maps of use. One of them shows the "probable limits" of Fraxinet (roughly in line with the current map in the lead) along with a map of towns that suffered Saracen raids. This would provide a solution for the map problem as derivatives could be made based off the two maps. One map showing the controlled territory, another map in the article body showing directions of raids and raided cities.

Photos of the maps appear here but I am unable to get my hands on the book myself to verify.

https://caucasekersco.blogspot.com/2017/04/tourisme-sarrasin.html HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Excellent find. I checked to see if his book is on Cairn as some of his other are, but alas. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I made a first version of such a derivate.

Map of Fraxinetum

The sources are indicated in the file description, but I will be glad for you all to scrutinize it, so that the second version might be better.

I was also thinking of adding some basic information from File:Map Burgundian Kingdom 2 EN.png, File:Karte Hoch und Niederburgund EN.png and File:C. 888 Europe.jpg like the nominal borders of Burgundy and Italy. However, I was not sure how authoritative these maps are, either, especially since so many general history maps are from the 19th century. --Enyavar (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Your map is excellent (both stylistically and in conveying relevant information) and one we should use in this article. The only suggestions I have would be to add a scalebar and increase the size of the city names to make then more readable.

As for the borders of Burgundy and Italy I wonder if they would even be useful in this article. From what I understand central authority was weak in the area due to the Muslim presence. Is it even proper then to add hard borders over such a large area when the kings around Fraxinet could not reliably defend their own borders?

The names of these kingdoms (such as Burgundy, Francia, and Italy) would be useful to have hovering over the map but I'm not sure about borders. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Lead framing

Srnec Why is one source not enough if one source was used for the previous lead. Is 2 sources and a dissertation sufficient? --Zabayrisxaaqi (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Zabayrisxaaqi: The lead had not citations before, because it doesn't need them per WP:LEADCITE. The lead should summarize the body of the article and that is where citations should be. The article already describes Fraxinetum as Muslim. There is no need to fit an ethnic qualifier into the lead because we simply don't know. Why is it important that the lead say Arab? The primary sources don't. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

We do know and many academics describe them as Arabs. Why do you want to hide that. I showed you academic source. Which I will use to expand the page. --Zabayrisxaaqi (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I will expand more in body of the article since your problem is with the lead. Plenty sources state Arabs. --Zabayrisxaaqi (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

to my knowledge, the primary sources from Europe labelled them as "saracenes", which has generally been interpreted to mean Berber peoples from Al-Andalus and/or North Africa. For people of the time, "Sarazene" and "Muslim" were synonyms. We may be quite certain that they were followers of Islam and not Spanish/Italian/French natives, but after more than 1000 years it would be impossible to narrow down their ethnicity.

... rereading... Oh wait, we already have a paragraph Fraxinetum#Identity. This whole thing is solved already: Not arabs. --Enyavar (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Enyavar, next time take the time to check academic sources and also who the Saracens were and stop trolling. Thanks --Zabayrisxaaqi (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zabayrisxaaqi, no trolling involved! You may have missed my quotation marks? The word "Saracen" was commonly used in medieval Europe to refer [...] not only to Arabs, but to Muslims taken generally as well. It eventually became the standard adjective among European Christians for all people and things from the Muslim world, regardless of whether they were Arab in origin.

I am well aware who actual Saracens were... people of medieval France were likely not. --Enyavar (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Map of Fraxinetum

@User:Muslumanus Ziiadus: All the maps that you keep proposing are fantasy maps. Please stop edit warring to push the idea that there was an emirate in the middle of Europe. Do you see this historical map? The yellow little region was Fraxinetum in the year 900. --Grufo (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

According to Arab historians and some european historians it was an Emirate Muslumanus Ziiadus (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Even if historians were to agree on the status of an Emirate (sources needed), the map you proposed at least four times already shows Fraxinetum as a veritable Empire that conquered/subjugated/vassalized all of Switzerland, Tyrol and Lombardy plus parts of Bavaria and Burgundy. That has never been the case.

I might believe the map if it said "the maximum extent of historical sources that mention..." or "area where a few people in the 9th/10th century were vaguely aware of Fraxinetum existing as a far-away place". But even so, we don't create/show such maps since they are essentially worthless. A similar map for the British Empire in the late 19th century would simply color the whole world red. --Enyavar (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it's becoming fairly obvious that @Muslumanus Ziiadus and @Mr.FarisAlIslam are sockpuppets of the same person. They have already been banned on the arabic wikipedia.

Please stop posting that terrible and unsourced map to force in some fantasy emirate in Europe. Sockpuppeting is already a rule-breaker on wikipedia. DukeLeotheFirst (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)