Talk:List of monarchs of Aleppo

Title

@Al Ameer son, Dr. Grampinator, Attar-Aram syria, and Cplakidas: This page was recently moved from "List of rulers" to "List of monarchs" by Nederlandse Leeuw. I think the old title was better. What do you think? Srnec (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the scope should decide the title. This page used to be about hereditary rulers or at least not governors appointed for a known period by an outside monarch. If this was still the scope, I would support list of monarchs of Aleppo. However, now Fatimid governors are also included, in which case a ruler would be more accurate, but I would prefer having this page dedicated for monarchs in the traditional sense of the word and moving the governors to their own page or something.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Attar-Aram syria. Category:Governors of Aleppo has its own category and subcategories. There is also already a List of governors of Aleppo Governorate. The few "non-dynastic" "governors" mentioned here are often still dynastic. They were rebel family members of the reigning house who simply were not able to pass on the throne to their own offspring before it was retaken by the "legitimate" branch of the family. That doesn't mean such a rebel who managed to temporarily secure the throne of Aleppo was suddenly a democratically elected president who abided by a constitution and delegated most of his legislative power to the parliament of the Republic of Aleppo. These are all still monarchs, regardless of whether they managed to found a dynasty or not. They all operated within that system within the wider nobility, wherein hereditary succession provided the most important form of legitimacy, and "might makes right" came second. There was nothing like fixed gubernatorial terms, let alone elections. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Srnec. They are not all monarchs. Revert to List of rulers of Aleppo. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Just like any other kingdom, Aleppo has been one from time to time in the span of 4000 years. It should have its own list of monarchs (wont write kings because the titles changed). The non-monarchical governors should be in another article or moved to notes in this article (I can only see a couple of Fatimid governors and the rest are just monarchs).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. I have no problem with the latter suggestion. Constantine ✍ 06:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

    Support Although I would argue (as I've done above) that all so-called "non-dynastic" "governors" were still monarchs. These were all local princely dynasties, or local princely dynasties in potentia. The concept of elected governors for a fixed term who are not permitted to have their son or other relative succeed them is decidedly modern. We do see in some cases in world history that a monarch appointed members of the nobility to a non-hereditary post as governor (but usually at the monarch's pleasure rather than a fixed term); the royal governors of Provence from 1481 onwards are a good example of this. Another example is the monarch-appointed governors of Toungoo in Burma from 1610 onwards. (And of course the List of governors of Aleppo Governorate, from 1971). These are steps towards a more "republican" form of government in the sense that the establishment of local dynasties is now forbidden, even if in the case of the king of France remains the appointer of the governors of Provence, and the monarch of the Toungoo Empire remains the appointer of the governor of Toungoo.

    The fact that an occasional rebel seized the throne of Aleppo but was unable to establish a local dynasty doesn't mean they were suddenly "not monarchs" anymore, suddenly operated in a republican system of elected or appointed office-holders etc. You can bet they would have established their own local princely dynasties if given the chance, as every rebel did in such scenarios. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

" We do see in some cases in world history that a monarch appointed members of the nobility to a non-hereditary post as governor (but usually at the monarch's pleasure rather than a fixed term)". This would be the case for the Fatimid governors (aside from the first one who declared his independence). The other "non-dynastic" rulers are described as such because they couldnt establish a dynasty and just interrupted the existing one but they remain monarchichal rulers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearly my instincts with regards to the word 'monarch' run totally differently those of everyone else here. To me, it just seems like a silly word to employ in the context of medieval Islamic politics when virtually nobody "ruled alone". The Ayyubid sultans of Aleppo were theoretically under the head of the dynasty in Egypt, who was theoretically under the caliph in Baghdad. Srnec (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

But this is the same in Europe where kings (Bohemia for example) ruled theoretically under the holy roman emperor. They still had hereditary rights to rule making them monarchs.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's all over. I have opposed to this push to use 'monarch' in preference to 'ruler' with respect to Provence and Saxony for basically the same reason. Srnec (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Not all monarchs are/were absolute monarchs. And although sovereignty usually applies to monarchs in theory, the King of Bohemia versus the Holy Roman Emperor example, and the Ayyubid sultan of Aleppo versus the head of the dynasty in Egypt versus the caliph in Baghdad example, show that this is not always the case in practice.

In terms of Wikipedia categorisation, Category:Rulers is actually a child of Category:Sovereignty, while Category:Monarchs is not in the Category:Sovereignty tree at all. So if we are ever in any doubt whether a certain "ruler"/"monarch" was "sovereign" or not, "monarch" is our best option for categorisation purposes. E.g. if Ayyubid sultans of Aleppo were not "sovereign" because of Srnec's arguments, then "monarch" is a better option than "ruler". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)