Talk:Mauro-Roman Kingdom

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mauro-Roman Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 15:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. I will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Good to hear! Before the review starts something I would like to comment on is that source #11, Merrills 2017, lacks a page number reference. I used the version of the book available on Google Books (link), which for some reason omits page numbers. The relevant section for this source would be a section in Chapter 4 of the book that specifically deals with the Mauro-Roman Kingdom, but there is no way for me to see which particular pages this section takes up.Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Could I see a quote from a source that clearly states that the kingdom of Altava is a rump state established after the defeat of Garmul? I have trouble to believe that the "Mauro-Roman" kingdom and Altava are not one and the same. LeGabrie (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing and stuff is a bit difficult for me at the moment as my computer just broke, but from what I can gather (I will see if I can find specific quotes down the line) the Mauro-Roman Kingdom designates the realm ruled by the "Kings of the Moors and Romans" that stretched through most of old Mauretania. This kingdom collapses in the wake of Garmul's defeat and death which is pretty clear from the map depicting the area later on that you appear to have uploaded (it's hard to link it because I'm typing this on my phone but I'm sure you know which one I'm referring to) where "Altava" is tiny compared to the kingdom Garmul appears to have ruled. To be honest I am a little confused but the article as it is now is how I understood it. Do you have a source that states that the two kingdoms are one and the same? As a "rump state" is a "remnant of a previously larger state" it seemed to fit here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So essentially it's your own interpretation of my map and the map by بلهواري محمد فيصل? There would be several problems with that. First that's a form of synthesis. Second, بلهواري محمد فيصل didn't specify what source he used for his map. Only with a source provided we can assume that his work is even legit and not just completely made up. Third, concerning my map it is important to point out that afaik it was not meant to depict the political situation after 567. Hence the display of the "Kingdom of Cabaon". Cabaon was a Berber chief thriving during the reign of king Thrasamund (r. 496-523). It should also be noted that the extensions of the kingdoms on my map are very tentative; they might have been larger in reality. "Do you have a source that states that the two kingdoms are one and the same?" No, but I also haven't seen a source stating that there were two kingdoms in the first place, including the whole "rump-state-after-Garmul" thing. If you find one please provide it. LeGabrie (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Mauro-Roman Kingdom is quite obscure and it is hard to find decent sources on it. The article as it is now is the best result I was capable of producing from the sources I found. A few of them describe the defeat of Garmul as resulting in a collapse of the kingdom (with a major consequence being that the coast is reincorporated by the Byzantines). There does not appear to be a Mauretania-spanning kingdom after his defeat, if you can source there being one I am welcome to accept it. Perhaps this should take some more looking into, but the realm ruled by Caecilius in the 600s appears to have been a confederacy of many tribes and petty kingdoms (as suggested by that leadership of the entire thing passed to the leader of a different tribe/kingdom after his defeat) and quite different from how things looked prior to Garmul. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The thing is that we don't even know the political situation of Mauretania before 578. Some authors claim there were several kingdoms, like for example Christian Courtois, from whom I copied the map. Then there are others, claming what there was one (so essentially as you understood), like Gabriel Camps in his "Rex gentium Maurorum et Romanorum. Recherches sur les royaumes de Maurétanie des VIe et VIIe siècles" (1984). In my new book on the Vandal kingdom (2016) the author speaks of Berber kingdoms though, so the thesis of Camps doesn't seem to be commonly accepted.
What happened after Garmul is even more obscure. According to Camps some Jeddars (mausoleums) date to the seventh century, which would imply that there was atleast some form of higher state administration, perhaps even the continuation of the "Regnum Maurorum et Romanorum". For now I think the best would be to merge "Mauro-Roman kingdom" and "Kingdom of Altava" though. LeGabrie (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think merging them should only be done if there is some reliable source that spells out clear political continuity between them. As you say the subject is quite obscure and historical sources are lacking. Perhaps the article should focus on the concept of a "mauro-roman kingdom" and mention competing views on the political situation and historiography? Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole "Kingdom of Altava" article is based on the premise that there was some type of splinter state after the defeat of Garmul. If there isn't a source confirming that then the article has no right to exist imo. The stuff happening after Garmul can still be covered in the entry for the "Mauro-Roman Kingdom". LeGabrie (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I still think there needs to be some source on that the two kingdoms are one and the same if they are to be treated as such, but as soon as I get my computer back I'll see what I can do. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Chris Wickham briefly discusses the possibility of one large Berber kingdom versus several smaller entities. Hope you can read it (page 337): https://books.google.de/books?id=q04qPNZasbIC&pg=PR21&hl=de&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=snippet&q=christian%20courtois%20make&f=false LeGabrie (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Back now, I will have a look at the source at some point in the next few days. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y (6.5%) 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y
• No dead links Y
• No missing citations Y

Prose Suggestions

Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.

• The Mauro-Roman Kingdom (Latin: Regnum Maurorum et Romanorum) was an independent Christian Berber kingdom centered on the city of Altava and controlling... suggest:
  • The Mauro-Roman Kingdom (Latin: Regnum Maurorum et Romanorum) was an independent Christian Berber kingdom centered on the city of Altava which controlled...
• His defeat in 578 AD marks the end of the Mauro-Roman Kingdom, which was fragmented and partially reincorporated into the Roman Empire. suggest:
  • {{His defeat in 578 AD led almost immediately to the end of the Mauro-Roman Kingdom, which was fragmented and partially reincorporated into the Roman Empire.}}
• and usually acknowledged the nominal suzerainty of the Roman Emperors suggest:
  • and often nominally acknowledged the suzerainty of the Roman Emperors

• @Ichthyovenator: That is all my suggestions, apologies for the long wait, passing now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I have implemented your suggestions! Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Title and Latin name

I'm concerned that the title of this article seems not to appear in a single academic source and in no internet sources that were created before this wikipedia page. That seems like original research. Am I right to understand that the only ancient reference to the name of the kingdom is the inscription "Pro sal(ute) et incol(umitate) reg(is) Masunae gent(ium) Maur(orum) et Romanor(um)"? Is there any source that actually indicates that the other kings used this title? Is it even clear that this was an official title? Is there any actual reference in any source to a Regnum Maurorum et Romanorum (which is mentioned repeatedly in the article text as if it were a well attested name for the kingdom)? If there is such evidence then that should be made much clearer. If the references to the kingdom's Latin name should be removed and it should be made much clearer that the name of the article is a name of convenience - like the Kingdom of Soissons. Furius (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The name does appear in the form of the title in the inscription in several sources, but yes applying it so often might be OR. There is no source that explicitly says that Garmul (or any other king other than Masuna) called himself "King of the Moors and Romans". I do think the name should be kept for the title and in the infobox ("Regnum Romanorum" in the Soissons article is also only in one contemporary source) but it could be made clearer that the only contemporary source is Masuna's inscription, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I came here to voice the same concern as Furius. I cannot find a single English RS for the term "Mauro-Roman Kingdom". It is also unclear on what sources the map File:Mauro-Roman Kingdom.png is based. The map of little kingdoms, on the other hand, I can easily source to Rushworth. Moreover, the list of kings looks a little too neat and tidy to me. Srnec (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Comment? Srnec (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Srnec: I had forgotten about this; I agree with you that this article probably suffers from WP:SYNTH, it uses numerous sources to present a more clear-cut and clean history than what might actually have happened. The map is also problematic, at the time I made it I just based it on the preceding map (linked on commons), but I can see that that map does not cite any sources. Masuna's use of the title "King of the Moors and Romans" is significant, but it probably should not be used to synthesize the existance of a consistent, large and unified Mauro-Roman Kingdom from the late 400s to late 500s. That said, there is a lot of sourced content in this article that isn't in any other article, it might just not fit together in the way that the article currently presents it. How would you suggest this be resolved? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it probably needs a plural title, to start. There is no point having an article on the kingdom of Masuna apart from his article, but there is usefulness in an article on the phenomenon of the post-Roman Moorish states. Some sources use "Moorish kingdoms", but on it's own that's rather ambiguous. Srnec (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the article could be restructured and reworked into something similar to the article on Sub-Roman Britain without having to redo it entirely, do you think that could work? "Sub-Roman Mauretania" doesn't appear to be a term in use and I agree that "Moorish kingdoms" is a bit too ambiguous; there were "Moorish" kingdoms before the Romans and (as the term was applied by medieval Europeans) after the Arab conquests. The term "Mauro-Roman" emphasizes that there was lasting Roman influence in the region; this source uses "Mauro-Roman kingdoms", would that work? This source uses the term "Romano-Berber", but in reference to an art style rather than a group of states. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Furius and Srnec: With Ichthyovenator MIA at the moment, I'll try to take over for him and fix any issues that exist. I think the first move is to find a suitable name. I believe that "Mauro-Roman kingdoms" works, as Ichthyovenator suggested above. From there we can make any fixes as needed; I think honestly just changing the title will solve a lot of the SYNTH issues: the sources right now seem to present a number of semi-continuous claims of a Mauro-Roman kingdom, rather than one contiguous kindgom, so just adjusting the title and lede to mark a change of subject would fix a lot. Is there anything else I'm missing, besides this? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with that as a first step. I'm not sure if much else is needed, but I will try to look over the article later. Srnec (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for this; that's really good of you. If the title is changed to Mauro-Roman kingdoms, then I guess there's a question about why the Kingdom of Altava and Kingdom of Ouarsenis are separate. Perhaps it is worth folding both of them into this one? But, I'm a bit out of my depth this "late" and this far west, to be honest, so do feel free to do what seems best. Furius (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but what you are saying here doesn't really work. I don't know where you get this idea of "semi-continuois claims of Mauro-Roman kingdoms" but it's entirely inaccurate. There is a clear strain of continuousness. Masuna (Massonas) rules the region until 535. Masuna passes in 535 and a new king is mentioned by Procopius known as Mastigas or Mastinas.[1] The exact circumstances of Mastigas's ascension to power are unknown, and neither are his relations to Masuna. After a failed revolt, Stotzas escapes to the kingdom where he marries an important noble's daughter (possibly Mastigas's) and starts gaining influence. after Mastigas's passing he is elected to the throne in 441.[2][3] Although John the Tyrant is listed as a Mauro-Roman king on English wiki, i'm not quite sure if there is proof of that. Not much is known about Garmul, or his ascension to the throne.

  To rename the article to "Mauro-Roman Kingdoms", you will have to provide proof that there were in fact several kingdoms. Because what we know aboht the three successive kings (Masuna, Mastigas, Stotzas) show that the kingdom was a continuous established society which was likely an elective monarchy centered in Altava. None of the ruler dates overlap, there is 0 sign of violence or invasion, and we know that Stotzas succeeded Mastigas and was elected by marrying the daughter of a local nobleman, and gaining influenc. All of these kings (including Garmul)[4] ruled over likely the same political entity centered in the same city, with the same culture Whatever748 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Mauro-Roman Kingdom territorial extension

Hello Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs), I found in the work of Procopius entitled "The Vandalic War", an important information concerning the territorial extension of the kingdom of Moors and Romans. I quote Procope himself :

"And after this the Moors won many victories over the Vandals and gained possession of the land now called Mauretania, extending from Gadira as far as the boundaries of Caesarea,[35] as well as the most of Libya which remained".

Here : http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Wars/Book_IV#X

The editor note [35] says : "_i.e._, from Tangier, opposite Cadiz, to Algiers. On Caesarea see IV. v. 5 and note."

According to Procopius, the kingdom of the Moors and Romans is founded following a series of victory of the Moors over the Vandals (the revolt began after the death of Genseric, after his death the Moors began to fight their vandals neighbors, according to Procopius himself), see :

"During the time when this Honoric ruled the Vandals they had no war against anyone at all, except the Moors. For through fear of Gizeric the Moors had remained quiet before that time, but as soon as he was out of their way they both did much harm to the Vandals and suffered the same themselves."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Wars/Book_III#VIII

The Vandals were expelled from Mauretania (all the territories at the West of Numidia).

It would be necessary to modify the map of the article and to put that the kingdom of Moors and Romans extended - since the death of Genseric - from the modern Tangier to modern Algiers. Then later, during the Byzantine reconquest, Belisarius took control of Caesarea from the Moors, and that's all.

Procopius uses the word "fear" to explain the submission of the Moors, but other ancient writers speak of a natural alliance between "barbarians" and not of a real relationship of subjection dominated to dominant (I no longer have the name of the author in mind but if you want it, ask me I can find the source).

The Moors participated (Procopius mentions it) to the various piracy raids and military actions of Genseric in the Mediterranean and the spoils of war were shared equally, which confirms the preceding remarks.

This period in the history of the Maghreb, the Romans, and the Vandals fascinates me a lot (I am myself of Maghreb origin), although it is very unpopular.

Thank you. L'Homme Presse (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Very good to bring this to attention! One question; are we 100 % certain that when Procopius talks of "the Moors", he means the unified kingdom under Masuna (the Vandalic war that lead to the fall of the Vandal kingdom would have been during his reign) and not the Berbers in general, seeing as there were also several smaller Berber kingdoms at the time (notably Aures)? After all, during the aftermath of the Vandalic war, there were multiple Berber rulers that nominally submitted to imperial rule. It would of course be good to have a well-sourced map either way.

I agree that this is a very interesting part of history, it is a shame that there are so few sources to go on. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added in some of the information from Procopius, specifically regarding the Vandalic war and the foundation of the independent Berber kingdoms. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Flag

Did the kingdom of the moors and the Roman’s even have a flag, like I added it from Wikimedia commons but like, I’m not sure if it had a flag. Emmanuelbruh (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I very much doubt it. The flag that you added is unsourced. M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah propably, cuz it was meant for visgothic kingdom page. I added it to the wrong page. Propably still wrong if Put in the 'right' page. Emmanuelbruh (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Some one please archive this post (I am now much more educated about was has a flag and what doesn’t). Emmanuelbruh (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

How does someone archive this? Also the only reason I cared about the flags was bc country balls used them XD. Anyways can someone archive this please? Emmanuelbruh (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Scholarly names for the article

For the record, since the intro is getting edited:

The phrase kingdom of Masuna (with lowercase K) is used by Alan Rushworth. The equivalent royaume de Masuna is used by Christine Hamdoune.

Jean-Pierre Laporte acknowledges that "La constructeurs des djedars étaient bien des reges Maurorum et Romanorum" (Laporte 2005, p.394; explaining in a footnote that he is not including Masuna in this), but for reasons given in his article, he believes that the true royal family lived at the Jedars and that their names are unknown to us (Masuna's membership in the Jedars being unproven); thus he speaks of a "royaume de djedars" (Laporte 2005, p.396, quotations his own) which makes "kingdom of Masuna" inappropriate to describe his interpretation of the evidence.

These are the only three specialists I could find who offered a name for any polity in the place and time associated with Masuna.

Andy Merrills objects to the idea that we have any evidence that either Masuna or the Jedar burials constitute anything like a kingdom, although he does mention a "state". Fisher and Drost speak only of "a political entity with some state-like features" and do not assert that they should be characterized as a kingdom. Yves Modéran believed that there could be a kingdom associated with Masuna, but that it was not provable due to the confusion in sources; see here.

Gabriel Camps, who did believe in a kingdom, did not give it a name.

The phrase "Moorish-Roman kingdom" (with lowercase K) is used by Herwig Wolfram, who is not a specialist in this field. No historian of any kind uses the name "Mauro-Roman Kingdom" and it should not be used going forward.

A note about the state of the article. I believe a better-written article would include more room for the views of Laporte and Merrills and explain their differences from Camps. Furthermore these scholars all differ strongly from each other on how to interpret the evidence, so I would definitely not want to merge them all together to describe a single hypothetical kingdom united around a single consensus reading of a period inscription. Also the section "Incorporation?" should be deleted since it is OR. However, this article is not in my field of historical expertise, and I cannot read French. I am mostly just in dismay that it is so bad, but I have basically reached the end of what hobbyist volunteer editing will permit to assist the article. NotBartEhrman (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Mauro-Roman Kingdom → Post-Roman Mauretania – The current name "Mauro-Roman Kingdom" has never been used by historians and therefore violates WP:COMMONNAME. There is no historical consensus that any kingdom existed in this place and time; see my discussion above. I am therefore requesting a name that accurately covers all the content in the article. However the proposed name is only a tentative suggestion which may be too generic for the article. NotBartEhrman (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Regnum Maurorum et Romanorum (which is covered in the article as well as multiple sources) means "the kingdom of the Mauri and the Romans" or "Mauro-Roman Kingdom" for short. The fact that there is no consensus regarding the name is even more of a reason to keep it. The suggested name is meaningless (given that there were a multitude of Kingdoms in post Roman Mauretania) and so is the "Moorish" term that the OP tried to add (obviously, Mauri is more accurate). M.Bitton (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: as far as the claim that the term "has never been used by historians", a quick Google Books search shows it used in Thomas Schneider, Language Contact in Ancient Egypt, Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie, LIT Verlag, Münster (2023). The term "Mauro-Roman" without "kingdom" is mentioned as one of several ethnographic terms that, according to De Africa Romaque: Merging Cultures across North Africa, Society for Libyan Studies, Marston Book Services, London (2016) are rarely used due to "deeply-rooted colonial ideology" (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the statement, just noting that the term exists in the proper context). Alan Rushworth, Housesteads Roman Fort—The Grandest Station, English Heritage Archaeological Reports (2009) mentions the "Mauro-Roman states" without explicitly mentioning a kingdom.

As counter-examples, I find "post-Roman Mauretania" in Jonathan Conant, Staying Roman: Conquest and Identity in Africa and the Mediterranean, 439–700, Cambridge University Press (2012), although I can see that this is just a footnote mentioning that the author of a 1985 article "sees post-Roman Mauretania as a single, unified kingdom", which is given as a contrary example to the statement that "the 'Moorification' of the African hinterland seems to have played out differently in contexts ranging from the Mauretanias in the west to Tripolitania in the east." I'm not sure whether Conant's point is relevant to this discussion, though it may be to the article. Globalizing Borderlands: Studies in Europe and North America, University of Nebraska Press (2016) also uses "post-Roman Mauretania" on one occasion.

As I see it, the problem here is that WP:COMMONNAME does not apply the way that the nominator suggests. The relevant language is: "[w]hen there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly", and of course the lead sentence for the same section: "[i]n Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article".

So in cases like this, where the topic could be called several different things, but none is prevalent in scholarship, any "neutral-language expression that (clearly) indicates the subject of the article" is appropriate. And "Mauro-Roman Kingdom" does that, as long as the content of the article appears to indicate that "a single, unified kingdom" probably existed for at least part of the period covered. It doesn't have to have covered every place that has been called "Mauretania", nor does continuity of government need to be demonstrated. "Post-Roman Mauretania" may also be appropriate, but an article by that title may have a broader scope than the present article's, covering more territory or a longer time span, and such a topic could be developed parallel to the present one. The only reason why the present title would not be appropriate would be if the scholarship clearly indicated that no such state existed; but at least some scholars seem to believe that it did—and that would be sufficient for the concept to have an article devoted to it, even if that were only one of several competing views of post-Roman Mauretania. P Aculeius (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Schneider is a linguist, and I believe his use of the phrase "Mauro-Roman Kingdom" is WP:CITOGENESIS since this article is several years old. When I dug into the literature, I realized why no historian has ever used it; the phrase is simply not an accurate representation of the historical texts or consensus. I've tried to reflect that in my edits to the article, but perhaps I didn't do a good job. NotBartEhrman (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one bit as everyone knows what "Regnum Maurorum et Romanorum" means (other names used include "Rex gentium Maurorum et Romanorum", "Rex Masuna gentium Maurorum et Romanorum" and "Rex Maurorum et Romanorum Masuna"). The work that you've done recently (after trying to delete the article) is just the beginning, there is a lot more in the French literature that will be added later. M.Bitton (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Your argument about citogenesis is unpersuasive, as the evidence demonstrates conclusively that the phrase "Mauro-Roman" predates this article (2018) by years, perhaps decades. Even if you could show that the phrase "Mauro-Roman Kingdom" does not appear in literature earlier than this article, scholarly literature dating back to the 1980s asserts that such a state existed, and the title would be valid as a clear, neutral description of the topic. There is also no evidence that Schneider obtained the phrase from Wikipedia; you can't merely assume it because his book was published after an article of the name existed on Wikipedia. Moreover, once a phrase is used in scholarly literature, it does not really matter how it originated. Nor is there any basis for excluding Schneider's use of it on the grounds that he is merely a linguist and not a historian. The work plainly fits under the heading of historical scholarship, and is published by a printer of historical texts. The present title is consistent with Wikipedia's article titling policy, and it should stay unless there is clear evidence of a better and preferable title. Currently there is not. P Aculeius (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support a move. See my comments above in #Title and Latin name. We cannot coin a name for a kingdom on the basis of a single Latin inscription. Not sure if the proposed title is the best. Srnec (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  The term "Mauro-Roman Kingdom" is already attested in English sources. M.Bitton (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Once. Downstream of this article and by an Egyptologist. Given that there were a multitude of Kingdoms in post Roman Mauretania, why should one be singled out as the "Mauro-Roman Kingdom"? Srnec (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, it's more than once. Here's another article (by a Nikolay N. Bolgov) that is dedicated to it. While it is in Russian, the English part clearly mentions the "Mauro-Roman Kingdom". As for your question: that's the official name (taken from the inscription) of a specific kingdom that is used by the RS to support the name. Unfortunately, the history of that part of the word is not properly covered in English sources to start with, less so in this instance since the subject is not well known. M.Bitton (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I believe this actually supports Srnec's point: the Russian body text refers to a "Kingdom of Altava" which Bolgov is characterizing as one of several Mauro-Roman kingdoms. NotBartEhrman (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, it specifically refers to the "Mauro-Roman Kingdom" in English and its equivalent "Мавро-Римскому королевству" in Russian. M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  It says "Mauro-Roman Kingdom Altava" and is clearly missing an "of". Srnec (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  So? M.Bitton (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  A bad English translation in no way shows that the kingdom of Masuna is called the "Mauro-Roman Kingdom" rather than "Kingdom of Altava". Just as the accuracy of the phrase "German kingdom of Württemberg" does not mean you can call the kingdom of Württemberg the "German Kingdom". Srnec (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  The quality of the translation is irrelevant given that it's described as the "Mauro-Roman Kingdom of Altava" in the article. M.Bitton (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Opose per M. Bitton.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.