Talk:Reconquista

An event in this article is a January 2 selected anniversary

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)

---

[from the main page]

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)