Talk:Reconquista

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Reconquista as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Portuguese language Wikipedia.

An event in this article is a January 2 selected anniversary

Contents

[edit] Fathers of Racism By Jose Rivera-Molina

This work, published by Taino Independent Press (which does not seem to exist)[[1]], was cited in this article. An editor removed the paragraph and the cite claiming the work was unreliable. I googled the book and found that the only two real hits for it were in Wikipedia itself. I concur with the editor's removal. If the book even exists (and it is not for sale anywhere on the internet) it certainly can't be cited due it being original research. SECisek 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crusade

"The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns sanctioned by the Papacy that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries." Reconquista cannot be classified as such. Furthermore, modern historical views disconnect the reconquista from a merely religious war. J4vier ---

From the article
The Popes called the knights of Europe to the Crusades in the peninsula. French, Navarrese, Castilian and Aragonese armies united in the massive battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (1212).
If a Pope calls for a crusade, it is a crusade. The conquest of Constantinople was a crusade as well, because it was made by crusaders on behalf of Venice. -- Error 01:44, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

The Popes may have called so in order to exagerate the conflict as a religious one in order to obtain power in the new Iberian Peninsula. To catagorize the reconquista as a crusade does not seem very logical or scientific and it is very misleading; one thing is writing that "the pope called a crusade" what is a fact, other is for us to categorize it as one, that is, to accept a very narrow point of view which historically is vey loose.
Forgive my ignorance, but why do these wars not count as crusades? Bastie 20:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

There were wars between christians and muslims without crusader spirit, like the wars of X century, and other wars that were authentics crusades like the campaign of Las Navas or Barbastro in 1064 (the very first crusade, here the Pope called to the christians for fight)

These wars are in fact crusades. Jonathan Riley-Smith, the English-speaking world's foremost living expert on the subject treats them as such. In his Atlas of the Crusades crusade is defined as "wars fought against those who were perceived to be external or internal foes of Christendom, for the recovery of Christian property or in the defense of the Church or Christian people." They are crusades, indeed. 23 June 2007
Never did sign this...SECisek 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[from the main page]


[edit] Modern uses of the term

There has also, of late, been a movement in the United States to term some pro-immigration Latino politicians as reconquistas. Largely this is used as a derogatory term, alleging that these politicians are actually part of a movement to re-conquer the United States for Mexico.

This "comment" is purely POV and should be removed from the main page. Also, who are the "Latino" Politicians?

La Voz de Aztlan is fairly extreme group who overly advocates creation of a new nation Aztlan, from Mexico and much of the southwestern US. The are alleged to have ties with MEChA, a more mainstream, but still conversial Chicano activist organization. A number of current Mexican-American politicians have been linked to MECha, most famously former Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante of California, who was a member in the 70's.

As for POV, the term reconquista is in fact being used in Southern California, against politicians perceived as being weak on illegal immigration. I have personally heard Cruz Bustamante, State Senator Gil Cedillo, and Los Angeles Mayor-Elect Antonio Villaraigosa characterized in this way, mostly by local radio commentators.

I do not see any huge bias, as the statement is factual and does not advocate a particular POV. I am not, however, convinced it belongs in an article about European history. Disambiguation is probably better.

[edit] Astures and Cantabri

Can you still talk of Astures and Cantabri in 711? And pagans? --Error 23:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you still can use both terms. I think that both terms were already in use by the late 3rd century on late imperial itineraries. The Visigoth and Suevan kingdoms did not change that much traditional society. More worryingly, most of the account for the early times of the Kingdom of Asturias is hopelessly out of date; it relies heavely on traditional accounts and Claudio Sanchez Albornoz's historical research, which dates from early 1920s (?). Surely, there are better and more uptodate research translated into English or even original research. Sadly, I am not a medieval historian, I am writing from what I remember from my years at University for my BA (General History of Europe & Spain)

[edit] Non-Catholics

Is the view that secret Arianists helped Muslims generalized? What about the part of gate openers played by Jews in Medieval chronicles? Is it true or just anti-Semitic? --Error 01:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There is not much published in English, I am afraid. I would recommend you any of the books by Luisa Isabel Alvarez de Toledo. She is the current Duchess of Medina Sidonia, and holder of one of the largest historical archives in Spain. All her books are in Spanish only.

You could also try to dig out an old book in French called Les arabes n'ont jamais envahi l'Espagne, by Ignacio Olagüe. However I am critic of this one for several reasons. If you manage to find it, also look out for Les arabes ont bien envahi l'Espagne, an article published in Annales E.S.C, by Prof. Guichard.

Regarding Sephardim, check the separate wikipedia article, recently updated Asterion 16:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I am very sorry for disturbing you, but do we have a reference for this?

"as Julian, like most of the people in Hispania at the time, was an Unitarian Christian"

As far as I know, please correct me if I am wrong, near every single people of Hispain in that time was in fact Catholic, whith only a few members of the Visigoth ruling elite being Arrian.

jamuki 18:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I have cheked again (for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths) and to the best of my knowlegde, vast majority of the population was Catholic (although some Visigoths were still Arrian). If nobody minds, I will delete the reference to Arrianism tomorrow or the day after.

Thanks a lot and best regards, jamuki 18:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

It's done. I am afraid I forget to login before doing so. My apologies for such an error.

Thanks a lot and apologies again.

jamuki 11:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


When Arabs came to Spain there has been no Arian for a while since the conversion of Goths rulers to catholicism. The choice by Goth or Roman nobles of islam was just a matter to keep their power, nothing to do with some theological choice. Thus the part explaining the conversion with a rejecion of trinitarian catholicism is irrelevant and I will remove it if noone objects.

[edit] Cleanup requested

I have requested that this article is cleaned up. I think it has great potential, a lot of useful content, and excellent and effective pictures. But the English is sometimes poor, the perspecive is a bit limited, and sometimes it seems to lack precision.--Stephan Schulz 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of how to reword it, but we probably shouldn't use the POV word "liberation" in the intro. Liberation implies freedom from slavery/oppression, and as far as I can tell, Muslim Spain was probably less oppressed than Christian Spain. FireWorks 17:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a question of esthetics, but the History of Spain box series is really ugly that way... Couldn't it be put a bit lower or to the right, get smaller, something? Lapaz 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've had a go at refactoring some of the more clumsy language in there (or at least replacing it with my style of clumsy language), and trying to neutralise some of the more obvious POVvy bits. I still feel that it reads like national myth in places, with (as the article itself admits) a complicated series of events being bolted together and squeezed into a particular narrative framework. As such I've left the cleanup tag on for now because it really needs someone who understands enough about the topic to know which bits are too narrow in their focus. I've also gone for "reestablishment of Christian rather than Muslim rule" instead of "liberation". Putting the Campaignbox at the bottom in the See Also works quite well (at least for the icky browser I'm currently using), but I have a horrible feeling it's a bit of a faux pas. --Bth 16:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Modern Views" section is still rather POVvy - to put it mildly. None of the assertions therein is verifiable, as there is a complete lack of citations. Pitix 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there as part missing now between the christian infighting and ferdinand and isabella? romanista 12:00, april 7 2006 (CET)

[edit] Map supplied

I've located a four part map and added it here. Removed the map request tag. Durova 02:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction and POV

For the second time an anon editor has changed the introduction to refer to concepts like "liberation" and "Muslim invader"s. This is inherently POV; as the article itself makes clear the situation is much murkier and more complicated than that. I'm not claiming the form of words I hit on for my cleanup is any good (in fact I think it's rather ugly), but changes should remain NPOV. --Bth 11:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...what's wrong with "conquest" or the more direct "reconquest"? There was no single "Muslim rule", there where a number of quasi-independent states ruled by a Muslim elite. Similarly, of course, there was no single "Christian rule", although the reconquista helped to establish a more-or-less unified Spain. --Stephan Schulz 13:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Ad nauseam. This article is constantly changed to reflect either a pro-Christian or pro-Muslim. My example is the section previously reading:
"Muslims and Jews were forced to convert to Christianity or leave Spain and Portugal and have their assets seized. Many moved to North Africa rather than submit. Despite that many Christians and Jews were allowed to retain their religions during the Muslim conquest of the peninsula (with less rights, of course), the new Christian rulers did not feel they owed them the same privilege. It seems probable that these policies were not only religiously motivated but also clearly a good excuse for seizing the wealth of the vanquished."
which drips POV. Not only does it presume to understand what was going on inside of Ferdinand and Isabella's heads, it openly mocks race relations. The title "Ethnic Cleansing" may have be roughly similar to the term used at the time, but that term means massacre to the modern ear, where it only meant expulsion then. The use of the sentence "It seems probable that these policies were not only religiously motivated but also clearly a good excuse for seizing the wealth of the vanquished." uses "It seems probable" to sound more NPOV, but then follows up with the word "clearly" and an attack on the Spanish throne. I'm NPOV-ing this again, let me know if and how you disagree.
-Diabolic 01:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The version I'm unhappy with doesn't use "conquest" or "reconquest" (although those words do somewhat suggest a unified single entity doing the conquering to me), it talks about "liberation" and "invaders". I like JBull12's current version a lot. (In general, my main issue is that there seems to have been as much Muslim v Muslim and Christian v Christian conflict during the period as Muslim v Christian so portraying it as a one religion against another thing seems overly simplistic.) --Bth 16:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and Ethnic Cleansing

The only remaining points of dispute between my (Diabolic.Insidious) edits and those of JBull12 lie within the section currently title "Ethnic Cleansing" which I am reproducing here for stability:

===Ethnic Cleansing===
The mixing of Christians, Muslims and Jews was later officially ended by the rules of ethnic or religious purity of the Modern Age, namely the Spanish limpieza de sangre and the expulsion of Jews by Manuel I in Portugal.
Muslims and Jews were forced to convert to Christianity or leave Spain and Portugal and have their assets seized. Many moved to North Africa rather than submit. Despite that many Christians and Jews were allowed to retain their religions during the Muslim conquest of the peninsula (with less rights, of course), the new Christian rulers did not feel they owed them the same privilege. It seems probable that these policies were not only religiously motivated but also clearly a good excuse for seizing the wealth of the vanquished.
(Revision as of 16:36, 28 April 2006)

I take issue with usage of the title "Ethnic Cleansing" because of the modern (Post-World War II) implications of death camps and mass graves of the Holocaust. The term ethnic cleansing is now a heavily loaded one and cannot reasonably be used to reflect a neutral point of view.

I also take issue with the latter part of the second paragraph, starting with "Despite," because I feel that it carries a mocking tone and makes claims that are not necessarily untrue, but are historically unverifiable; we cannot know what the new Christian rulers were feeling, and if we could, this does not take into account the political landscape of Medieval Europe or the influences of the Catholic church.

The last sentence contains good ideas, but once again takes a sarcastic and synical tone that is historically unwarranted.

Over the past edits the differences between the reversions have diminished and I think that this can be resolved and stabilized to some reasonable degree. --Diabolic 18:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


A lot of this has been cleared up, or compromised on. I thiink we need some fresh editors to take a look at it. --Diabolic 22:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if anyone knows how to verify and back up the statement that the land that was colonized durring the reconquista was uninhabited.--Dr.Worm 04:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal

We are in need of more information on Portugal in this article, but since it is so long I think it would need to be moved to Spanish Reconquista, and new Portuguese Reconquista article be created with this page acting as a dramatically shorter overview of the two.

I killed the History of Portugal Template because it was ugly-ing up the page. If anyone could do a better job of inserting it I would appreciate.

--Diabolic 01:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We need an article about Moorish Portugal (please follow wikilink to "Portugal" section) as well. If anyone can help, please do so. The Silves article and Lisbon article ("Moorish Rule" section) may help. Thanks. Stallions2010 21:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of the info could be incorporated from Afonso I of Portugal. Perhaps this would be a good wikipedia collaboration? 12.220.94.199 23:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Caliph of Cordoba and Saint Pelagius - unsupported persistent deletion

I cut this section:

His alleged pederastic abuse of a Christian boy, Saint Pelagius of Cordova, became a rallying cry for subsequent generations of Christian soldiers, and is reputed to have provided spiritual energy for centuries to the Spanish Reconquista. However, the episode is seen by modern scholars as part of a pattern of demonization of Muslims and to portray them as morally inferior.[1]

because it is information that falls into the realm of historiography rather than historical fact. The information itself was intended as a moral attack on Islam, and its inclusion on the article, despite disclaimers, continues to act in that regard. If there is a place for this sort of thing I'm puzzled as to where it should go, exactly. --Diabolic 16:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The following text, His alleged pederastic abuse of a Christian boy, Saint Pelagius of Cordova, became a rallying cry for subsequent generations of Christian soldiers, and is reputed to have provided spiritual energy for centuries to the Spanish Reconquista. However, the episode is seen by modern scholars as part of a pattern of demonization of Muslims and to portray them as morally inferior. (Walter Andrews and Mehmet Kalpaklı, The Age of Beloveds, Duke Univesity Press, 2005; p.2) has now been removed twice from the article, without any cogent explanation. If you have a problem with it, discuss here please. Haiduc 04:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note I have never removed the text. Nevertheless, I object to the following sentence: "and is reputed to have provided spiritual energy for centuries to the Spanish Reconquista". It is redundant and does not sound neutral to me. I understand this is taken directly from Saint Pelagius' entry in Wikipedia. Regards, --Asterion talk to me 06:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Providing information that is doubted by modern scholars lends the biases of previous historiographical discourse to the current document. If modern scholars do not believe that it was true, why is it there? If someone disagrees with modern scholars they may make their case, but a citation stating that the cited information is untrue hardly stands as support for said information. If the point is that muslims were demonized, then perhaps that thesis should be made more clear, but if the point is to spread a centuries-old rumor that is largely disbelieved by modern scholars, then the statement should be removed. This is my explanation. --Diabolic 09:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think in certain cases, such as a biography of the Caliph or St. Pelagius, information that is probably dubious can be included as long it as marked as controversial and probably not true, just information to know. But in an article about the Reconquista, which is already large, it is not necessary, and clearly an attack on Islam. --JBull12 00:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how this ends, if the boy is in, he should not be in as "Saint Pelagius of Cordova", as he was only canonized a long time later. Also, "pederastic" is a concept that is probably not appropriate to the time. I'd just put it in as "alleged abuse of a Christian boy". --Stephan Schulz 00:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I’d like to answer the critiques one by one. Regarding Diabolic’s suggestion that this information has a historiographical slant, I would agree. But I wonder whether that aspect can ever be fully detached from historical writing - or whether that automatically disqualifies information from inclusion in an encyclopaedia. It is part of the history of the Reconquista that moral attacks, including homophobic themes, were used to fire up the spirits of the masses. Why avoid confronting the issue?! And the claim that mentioning a slur merely serves the ends of the original polemicist, if accepted, would shut down a great deal of valuable analysis by imputing simplistic thinking to readers who deserve more credit.
Asterion’s suggestion that the “spiritual energy” claim is biased is not applicable, since it is the claim of the historians being cited. If you have a reason to believe that they are biased in making that statement, can I ask you what it might be? It is not taken from the Saint Pelagius article, rather both instances are taken from the Andrews and Kalpakli study. And redundant? How?
Then Diabolic returns stating that the information is doubted by modern scholars. If true, that also should belong in the article. But which scholars are the ones doing the doubting? Not the two I cited. They simply refer to the incident as “alleged” and focus on discussing the historiography and politics of the story. The story may very well be true. I do not know. Do you? But it is historical, and it seems to be quite important to the politics and religious conflicts of the time. Why are we privileging war over desire? Is that not “pov” itself? Then you seem to question my motives, suggesting I am a rumor monger. That is not my motive. I am simply interested in documenting the interweaving of pederastic eros with the fiber of history. It is a topic that has been intentionally suppressed, and the least we can do here is to restore some semblance of balance to the discussion. If this story was indeed used for centuries as a goad, led to the canonization of a person, and is considered significant by modern scholars, then I submit it is worthy of inclusion.
Jbull, I think I have already answered both your objections, that it is “an attack,” and “unimportant.” If the article is too large, then entire sections can and should be spun off. But deleting relevant information degrades the value of our work. Stephan, I would not mind the boy being named “Pelayo,” with a mention of his later canonization. As for “pederastic” not being appropriate to the topic of Andalusian boy love, both Moslem and Jewish, that is not the consensus of the historians writing on the topic, among whom the two cited as well as many, many others. The fact is that “pederasty” has become a generic moniker applied by academics to erotic relations between men and boys wherever they occur, not just in antiquity. Haiduc 02:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

With this explanation Haiduc's motives are certainly less murky, and I hope that he can understand the concern, considering the allegations of "Mohamedian vandalism" that were bantered about in the past weeks when Christian POV was being questioned.

The information need not be completely removed, but it certainly needs some work. As is I am still convinced that it serves the original slander and requires a certain change of mood that I'll try to instate when I'm done here. I don't think readers deserve more credit, though, because slander and racism do not operate on an intellectual level. A study was done (a real study, not one of those abstract "studies have shown," I'll try to get a source in here on monday when I have access) showing that a majority of readers will believe anything they read that reinforces their existing world-view even if that information is later retracted and declared positively false. The example of the study was the modern American Iraq War, where many pro-war activists still believe that Iraq had WMDs (because of a news story that was promptly retrected), whereas Canadian or British citizens at large remember the retraction and do not hold the belief. Although NPOV may never truly be possible, the point is to try to avoid it anyway.

The "Spiritual energy" thing, well, that's just silly. Of course racism fueled the Reconquista, but "spiritual energy" is hardly a measurable factor. If the Andrews and Kalpakli study were on wikipedia, I would have edited it and changed to wording to something more straightforward, I reccomend that their claims be de-emotionalized and serious-ified immediately. Otherwise it still stands for me.

Por fin, I agree that this information should probably be spun off, as should many sections of this article, and I'm open to suggestions as to how to get that started while maintaining the integrity of this article.

--Diabolic 03:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit seems absolutely fine, thank you. As for spinning things off, I think I may have been misunderstood. Once the article reaches an unmanageable size, subsections that can stand on their own are spun off into independent articles after leaving a summary in place. However, this article is far from being unwieldy, it would have to grow by 50 to 100% before reaching that point, as per current Wikipedia practice, and the information on the use of eros to draw a distinction between opposing camps is quite significant and of historic interest and should not be tucked away in some out of sight place when its primary relevance is to the Reconquista. Haiduc 01:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Great work. I could not have said it any better. These are the times I love Wikipedia (i.e. people reaching consensus instead edit-warring). In any case I would advise to include a comment saying <!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR ALTER THIS PARAGRAPH WITHOUT FIRST REFERRING TO THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE --> to prevent any drastic removal by newcomers. Regards, --Asterion talk to me 09:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Clever device! Thanks for the suggestion. Haiduc 11:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] adding in more information

i have got a book written by Henry Kamen - Spain 1469 - 1714 A Society of Conflict Third edition, In this book Henry claims when Grenada fell about the time of 1492 the moors in Castile numbered "half a million within the realm, 100,000 had died or been enslaved, 200,000 emigrated, and 200,000 remained as the residual population. Many of the Muslim elite, including Boabdil, who had been given the area of the Alpujarra mountain as a prinvipality, found life under Christian rule intolerable and passed over into north Africa" pp 37 - 38

SHould this be included?

[edit] copyright infringement?

I found the following text in Spanish: (source: [2]):

El nuevo monarca era hijo de Fruela I y la alavesa Munia, formando parte del linaje de Alfonso I. Las dificultades llegaron pronto, procedentes del sur. En los veranos de 792, 793 y 794 diversos ataques cordobeses saqueaban la zona de Alava y el corazón de reino asturiano, llegando hasta la capital, Oviedo. En una de las retiradas Alfonso infligirá una severa derrota a los cordobeses, en la pantanosa zona de Lutos. Precisamente para evitar estos continuos ataques, el rey asturiano iniciará estrechos contactos diplomáticos con los reyes de Pamplona y Carlomagno y su sucesor, Ludovico Pío. El contacto con la corte carolingia motivará la llegada a Asturias de influencias culturales, religiosas o políticas. Al-Hakam I evitará en la medida de los posible que se produzcan estos contactos y atacará la zona de Alava y Lisboa de manera contundente entre los años 798 y 803, aunque el éxito cordobés será muy limitado. Abd al-Rahman III continuará con esta política de campañas anuales, utilizando Galicia como frente de operaciones. Asturias saldrá reforzada de estas campañas ya que afianzará sus dominios en las zonas de Castilla, Galicia y León, poniendo en marcha una intensa labor repobladora en estos territorios. La situación interna del reinado de Alfonso II tuvo un momento de gravedad, entre los años 801 y 808, cuando el rey fue obligado a retirarse al monasterio de Ablaña ante la presión de un grupo nobiliario. Recuperó el trono gracias al noble Teudano, poniendo en marcha desde ese momento una importante labor de reorganización del reino, vinculándose a la herencia visigoda para reforzar el poder real. El anónimo autor de la "Crónica Albeldense" manifiesta que Alfonso restauró en Oviedo "todo el orden gótico toledano, tanto en la Iglesia como en Palacio". Construirá un nuevo palacio en Oviedo que será su centro propagandístico y se distanció de las Iglesias toledana y franca, creando una nueva sede metropolitana en Lugo. El sobrenombre de "el Casto" viene motivado por su renuncia a las mujeres, falleciendo sin descendencia, lo que motivó que la corona recayera en Ramiro I.

If you speak Spanish you'll see that half of the section of "The beginning of the reconquista: The Kingdom of Asturias" is a literal translation of that webpage. I ask user that inserted this text to specify if this text copyright-free (after navigating the website I doubt it). I believe it should be paraphrased and the source should be cited. Literal translations are not paraphrasing and still constitute copyright infrigement, don't they? --Alonso 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Race

The articles gives the impression the the moors took half of their population into boats to the peninsula. They were concentrated on the military issues, the population remained the same ethnic group of before, just changed the religion and government. The muslim/christian miscigenation was between the same ethnic group, then. At least the great majority. You speak as if those living under the muslim rule changed their races when they changed their religious beliefs, and this is just a way to keep excluding Spaniards from the historical "Europe", labelling them as the bastard children of invasors. It sucks ass, dudes. And I also believe that with the local ethnic group converted, they ruled the land when the time passed. There was no real ethnic change. I read a whole book about it but I can't find the link anymore. Damnit. And there was an "ethnic cleasing" so I can't see why do not call it this way, it's basically what "limpieza de sangre" means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.40.152.210 (talk • contribs)

You are basically right. The Ogre 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes..in those times, i believe, it was logistically impossible to bring mass arab and berber imigration to Hispania..the muslim rule was based on a few scattered elites and military.I consider those who say that spaniards/portuguese are jews,arabs,mixed,bastard to be racists,haters and, simply, liers.People should not call other people things they arent.Other thing that its not mentioned here is the "system of castes" imposed by muslim rule.This system stated, among other things, that christians and jews were not allowed to have land or title. Lvsitania_Warrior 23:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this statement in the first paragraph really true? -"despite the fact that the majority of the conquered peoples were Arabized and Muslim" - I understand that they were culturally assimilated to arab rule (rather in the same way that western culture has been assimilated in many ways in Africa as a result of colonial experience)but I am sure that there was never a majority of muslims in Muslim Spain. Exceptions were probably a few towns and maybe the region of Granada in its last days. Can someone else confirm/deny this definitively?--AssegaiAli 19:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] idea of "Reconquista" as post-fact 'propaganda'

Although it is implied at the end of the article ("The word Reconquista itself should be regarded as an explanation for a long unplanned historical shift or even as Christian propaganda by the new reigning houses to justify their rule as heirdom") the article should note quite early on that the whole idea of a "Reconquista" is in fact a term/idea constructed long after it ended.

Prof. Joseph Callaghan of Fordham University writes about this in his book Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain from 2003. A short review of the book by Ana Echevarria, Assistant Lecturer inHistory, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, concludes this(link here)

Christian propaganda depicting the ‘Reconquista’ as a war to eject the Muslims from territories rightfully owned by Christians (dealt with in O'Callaghan's first chapter, ‘The Reconquest: Evolution of an Idea’) has been idealised in Spain, both as part of the origins of the nation, and because of the traditional alignment in the modern Roman Catholic church. Despite some challenges in the last thirty years, the word 'Reconquest' is still used generally, with the public continuing to use the term in common conversation. It is no surprise that Hispanists such as O’Callaghan himself, J. Hillgarth, P. Linehan, the late D. Lomax and A. MacKay have all discussed at great length the convenience (or otherwise) of using this concept for the history of medieval Spain.

I believe the article should reflect this more clearly. Anyone agree? Regards Osli73 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However I do not think the name of the article should be changed. Further explanation of the ideological meaning of Reconquista should be added though. By the way, this is not just a Spanish phenomenon, but also a Portuguese one. The Ogre 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the name of the article should remain unchanged and the description of the "reconquista" doesn't have to be changed. The article just needs to say in the beginning that the idea of a "reconquista" is a ideological construction. It could also be interesting to explain why this was done (if anyone has any information on that). Cheers Osli73 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chess game pic

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs of a chess game between a Moor and a Christian from the Libro de los juegos be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Spain may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

It is probably this image but I'd rather a cleaner version. It could go on top of the article as it could symbolize a long combat between Islam and Christianity. --84.20.17.84 12:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 1, 2007 unsourced edits

Today's unsourced edits came from an anonymous IP that deleted pertinent sections recently. Request another editor review additons. Morenooso 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is completely wrong

From beginning to end. Its based on Dr. Sánchez Albornoz theories, that are nowadays found to be almost an invention: they dont match with neighter muslim or european sources. The Kingdom of Asturias was only an internal designation for the Kingdom of Gallaecia (thats how its called by external observers), in wich every region had its own realm designation (rei de Lugo, rei de Tui, etc...). We cant even confirm the "Pelagi" (Pelayo in spanish) origins. He could be visigoth, swadian or even british (as his name suggest). Anyway, he was a galician rooted noble that after his expulsion from the Tui Court, gained a lot of prestige reconquerig Asturias and creating his own kingdom. Thats why he became so popular that the rest of gallaecian kings saw him as their fair leader. Its proven Gallaecia was never conquered by the islamists, but Asturias was -that name didnt exist by the time-, so Galicia was the core of the early reconquista and its further backbone. This all should be correctly depicted in this article, but even the greatest specialist have serious doubts about this dark period. 88.25.235.209 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the Muslim invaders were actually from Mars! Come on! Give us break! User:88.25.235.209 opinions are just Galician nationalistic POV! The Ogre 07:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact Asturian Mountains was the place where the future Portuguese-to-be retreated to..to escape muslim invasion.In fact the portuguese second biggest city Porto(in english "Oporto") is still today nicknamed as Invicta(in english "Invincible,untouched,irreductible") because they proud themselves of having never been conquered by the moors, and even, as typical insult, they call Lisboa(Lisbon, Portuguese Capital city) people "mouros"(in english "moors") due to traditional rivalry between the two biggest cities and North-vs-South portuguese rivalry. Saying the muslim conquered past "Douro" river is non-sense.At best moors conquered till the portuguese city of Coimbra. P.S.-In this comments i only refer to the portuguese side of "reconquista" in the territory that is called today Portugal and Galizia. About the Spaniard side, i know nothing. LightBringer_PT 00:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Fellow LightBringer, i think you are mistaken, see Porto --Bentaguayre 09:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

LightBringer PT (whose name is already a political statement...) is, in fact, 89.26.217.119, and, I believe, not a properly registered user... And his statements about the history of the city of Porto a complet fabrication. Porto was indeed under Moorish control until its recapture under the first Count of Portugal Vímara Peres in 868. The name Invicta was given to it for having resisted a military invasion in the 19th century by the Imperial Napoleonic Armies. The Ogre 12:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


From history facts, this article part is absolutely fantasy, this came maybe from a nacionalist (nacionalista gallego) (Asturias had only Asturias and Cantabria armies, no Gaellic Kingdom survive the muslim rule, and no Gaellic Kingdom even exist, it was a Suevos Kingdom,...)

[edit] War?

If this is a war or a campiagn, wheres:

(a) the campaign box (b) war info box Tourskin 03:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep NPOV Tag Up?

Most of the arguments on the this talk page concerning NPOV seem to be out-dated (although I might be wrong). Is there anyone here who still feels that the NPOV tag should be kept up? If no one responds in the next couple of days (by end of 8/12/07 or 8/13/07) in favor of keeping the tag, I will remove it. Of course, please remember that it can be reinserted just as easily, if one wishes. ask123 17:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's August 28 and the NPOV tag is still up. I'm taking it down. There is also a tag stating that "This article does not cite any references or sources," when it most certainly does have sources. If someone feels the sources are inadequate, then it should be labeled as such (i.e., "This article needs additional references or sources for verification"). It is not without sources. I am removing this tag as well. RobertM525 05:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Where's the end??

Is there a reason that the article stops short of describing the final 400 years of the Reconquista? It seems to cover most military and political engagements until about 1080, briefly mentions Papal involvement up to 1212, then skips ahead to Modern Views and other epilogical information. What's the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.254.158 (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It needs some major attention, that's all. Srnec 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the map, and about the separation between the invastion and the Reconquista

From the article:

The Umayyad conquest of Hispania from the Visigoths occurred during the early 8th century, and the Reconquista began almost immediately, in 722, with the Battle of Covadonga, and was completed in 1492, with the conquest of Granada.

If this is the case, why is the invasion not pictured in the map animation? If the above is correct, it is much better to view the historic time period as a semi-failed invasion, or whatever you want to call it, but at least as one event. It would also remove doubts as to what the situation at the start of the reconquista was (pictured or not pictured?) or, indeed, the end (not pictured). Shinobu (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The historical story with all the placenames, countynames, etc. etc. is very hard to follow for someone who is not from Spain. Instead of the animated map at the top of the article, which is impractical because the short duration of the frames of the animation do not leave the viewer enough time to read them, the article should have a lot of maps, tied to specific paragraphs, highlighting the situation described there.

Also, nothing is shown of the internal structures of the Moorish lands, whereas the internal structure of the Visigoth lands is shown.

At "By the end of the 10th century, Aragon was annexed by Navarre", the article completely fails to state the circumstances.

This article is in serious need of attention. Shinobu (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. It's a complex topic, so it is not easy to attend to. Perhaps I will completely rewrite and strip it down to a smaller size soon, because the current article is of almost know use. Srnec (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Well, the map have a lot of heavy mistakes:

  • 790: 1. By this time, the eastern limit of the kingdom of Asturies was in present day Cantabria, and didn't include Burgos, Basque Country or Navarre (under muslim power); 2.The southern limit was far in the north and Santiago (took on 800) or Leon (took on 856) was out of the kingdom; 3. Barcelona was conquered by the franks in 801, the frontier was between Gerona and Barcelona; 4. Seville and Cordoba are each one in the place of the other; 5. Balearic islands was under byzantine rule.
  • 900: 1. The kingdom of Galicia born in 910 so by this time this region is Leon; 2. By this time, Castile was a County dependent of Asturias; 3. One of the worst mistakes: Aragon is overextended, Huesca was conquered in 1095 and Tudela in 1110, Tarragona in 1129 but by the catalans those lands was under the power of Cordoba or under (muslim) Zaragoza (conquered in 1118) because in certain sense this last was very independent, other territories was under local muslim lords, independents of Cordoba (Tudela for example); 4. Balearic islands was independent, not wasnt't conquered by the Emirate until three years later.
  • 1150: 1. Galicia was in this time a County dependent of Leon; 2. Castille and Leon was united, and splited again in 1157; 3. Catalonia wasn't an entity with that name, but County of Barcelona with other smallest counties dependent of Barcelona.
  • 1300: 1. Castille and Leon was united, the internal division of the Crown is highly inacurate; 2. Present Basque Country was a castilian territory; 3. Navarra was part of the French kingdom 4. The Crown of Aragon was the political entity of eastern Iberia, and was divided in three differents kingdoms: Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia (wich wasn't splited in two like show the map), was a federal entity not a property of Aragon; 5. Balearic island was and independent kingdom (plus Roseillon) althought vassal of Aragon.

In the last three maps the Kingdom of Navarra is overextended in the north, in the last two maps Tudela should be a portion of Navarra.

regards --Bentaguayre (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


I will put this same points on the discussion of the image. --Bentaguayre (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This map is a disaster, I delete it for this reasons

[:Image:Espanyamusulmana1.png]

If we say that 'King Arthur' helped 'El Cid' in 'La reconquista', we probably will be more accurate than this map. In historical terms it's a complete disaste:

1. The Omeya caliphate never arrived to the Catabrian coast.

2. The basque country belonged to Castile or to Navarre depending of the period or the zone.

3. The visigothic Kingdom is bad situated.

4. The Bizantine Empire included more than the Balearics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.31.194 (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I never claim to be all wise in these matters. I'm just trying to improve this article into something better. However:

1) If we accept that Pelagio lead a rebellion against the local Muslim governor Munuza we have to follow the logic that the Muslim had at the very least a temporary control of the area (you can't lead a revolt against the local governor if there isn't any local governor present in the first place).

2) AFAIK the nations of Castile and Navarre hadn't been established yet. However the Basques managed to crush Roland and rear force of Charlamagne's army. So the Basques seem to be already there...

3) Agreed, however a remaining piece of the Visisgothic kingdom seems to have survived the initial invasion. As far as I have gathered the Muslims invaded and finished Septimania only in 719. And no one is sure when Ardo died.

4) I don't know about the extent of the Byzantine territories inside the Iberian peninsula around 711. I know there is a weak theory that Julian, count of Ceuta might have been a Byzantine governor. Could you give me an article about this issue (the Byzantine territories inside the Iberian peninsula around 711)? A good web-site would be nice.

First you removed a map without giving any reason (or proper comment) at all. I reverted that (what was I supposed to think?). You remove it yet again and leave a warning to look at the talkpage? No, when someone reverts something like that, one is advised to give one's reasons first. I looked around and this map seems to be the only one showing the Iberian peninsula shortly after the invasion. I'm more than willing to replace it with a better one. However a bad map might be better than no map at all. A few advices: New posts in the talkpage are always written below older posts, and signing your posts is advisable. Flamarande (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


Ok, I won't remove this map anymore, but I think that this kind of things contribute to the descredit of wikipedia. If you backtrack the origin of this map you will realize that this map was created by catalonian nationalistics to support pseudo-cientifical theorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.239.113 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me comment that I largely despise separatists, secessionists and similar kinds of scum (unless the people (the minority) is truly oppressed - which isn't the case of Spain since the death of Franco and the re-introduction of democracy - I tend to respect serious and responsible regional autonomists). i agree that the map is suspect. However there isn't any other map that I could find. A fair and visible warning about this mater is in the text. And the four issues raised above? Care to give me some valuable information? Flamarande (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)