Talk:Tikal–Calakmul wars

Merge the other Tikal-Calakmul war articles here

I suggest that the following:

• First Tikal-Calakmul War
• Second Tikal-Calakmul War
• Third Tikal-Calakmul War

all be merged here - divisions into individual wars are arbitrary and all were part of a centuries-long struggle between the two major cities; our record of these wars is subject to what has been preserved in the hieroglyphic record, which is far from complete. Although more information is likely to come to light, it is unlikely that any of these individual articles can be substantially developed, whereas an overall article may be worthwhile. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose These are separate wars spanning several centuries; the status quo is fine for for readers who want a general overview on this landing page. We wouldn't merge all the Punic Wars together. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The real problem I have with them is that we really don't know if the "first" Tikal-Calakmul War was the first, and even if it were, we don't know if other periods of conflict haven't come to light, so the Second war could actually be the Fifth etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You're simply invoking the Loki's Wager fallacy. We have to label them somehow, and we're doing the best we can! :) -- Kendrick7^talk 19:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

But nowhere in the sources is this division/numeration actually used... Simon Burchell (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge please. Pyrusca (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose merge: distinct wars, widely separated in time, are likely to be independently notable, and from the existing pages it seems that there is enough information on them to maintain their separation. If the objection is to the naming of the wars, then this could be resolved by moving each page to a name that doesn't have this problem; for example, the "first" Tikal-Calakmul War could be Tikal-Calakmul War (537–572). I'm not proposing this, but it would be a way of resolving any naming concern. Klbrain (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy with that solution - my problem with the current titles has always been that they are "invented" subjects - unsourced and arbitrary. Switching them to a date range instead of first/second/third would be an acceptable solution. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Tikal-Kaan wars?

I suggest that the wars should be renamed as the Tikal (or better yet Mutul)-Kaan wars.

The conflicts discussed in this article are struggles between states rather than a conflict between cities. This is especially true in the case of Calakmul for 2 reasons:

1) unlike other Mayans states the state of Kaan seems to have exercised control over a much larger area with many other important centers of power under the control of a single state and dynasty. Why refer to one city when there is an appropriate name for the whole state?

2) It is yet uncertain, and even unlikely given the absence of inscriptions, that Calakmul was the primary center of power or indeed the capital of the Kaan state during the first war. The evidence currently available backs the conclusion that there was a powerful kingdom called Kaan at the time and that there was aconflict between the state of Kaan and Tikal. Not that the kingdom was based in Calakmul or that it was the primary center at the time. Hence we should not name it thus.