This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Alcácer Quibir article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an article badly in need of attention. There are not factual details (which exist) beside the legend.
"The Portuguese army was small. According to the battle legend, young King Sebastião promised to his men that the cross would win against the crescent and that they didn't need to fight: He could kill every Moor on Earth by himself. The soldiers ran away from the Plaza of the city, and after a couple of hours, when they came back to Alcacer Quibir, neither their king nor the Moors were there. The battle was won by the Moors." --> this must be part of a legend!
lots of issues | leave me a message 09:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not quite certain if this article is quite neutral, or at least very Encylopaedic. I agree that it needs attention.
I agree about NPOV problems. This article shows a bias against the Portuguese- and the mention of "regime change" is completely unnecessary.
As the originator of the basic form this article has had since 11 November 2005 (just look in the history to see what a lamentable state it was in before then) I strongly deny any personal anti-Portuguese bias. Quite the reverse: my partner is half-Portuguese and Portugal is one of my favourite countries of all those I have ever visited. If there is bias in the article it is carried over from my principal English-language source (detailed at the foot of the article); but it does not seem possible to represent the campaign as anything other than unwise, and the battle as a disaster for Portugal. I was surprised that I could not find a viable source for this major battle later than the mid-19th century, and if anyone can contribute better, updated and more detailed information I wish they would do so. Some people have made some valuable additions but I agree that plenty more needs to be done on this entry – especially perhaps from the Moorish side – and I know I am not competent to do it.
Re ‘regime change’: the term, as applied to the 16th century, is of course anachronistic, but it seems a useful shorthand description for what Sebastian was trying to do: replace one ruler with another whom he hoped would be more sympathetic or pliable to his cause. If anyone has a better way of expressing this let them do so. Cenedi 13:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added two sources that are in the English language. I think they are very good, especially E. W. Bovill's work. He was a student of the Sahara. His book seems very balanced and is very detailed as to the Muslim combatants. Bartam ( talk) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
As a Portuguese and a historian I find this article very balanced and aligned to all that I have read about the subject. It does conflict with the heavily romanticized version taught in Portuguese elementary schools and avoids all the hearsay about all the proclamations that the king and various nobles are supposed to have made before and during the battle but that is a key strength. It could be longer as the situation in Morocco was complex and the Portuguese had initially counted on more support and a more divided country also it could expand a little on the interactions between Portugal and Castile before, during and after the battle but these are nice to haves. I like the article.
The battle was a complete disaster for Portugal then one of the wealthiest Empires and joint with the Spanish occupation heavily accelerated its decline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA13:F542:2C80:44C6:42BB:2A2A:C002 ( talk) 06:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
shouldnt the name of this battle in this article and the name of this battle in the Campaignbox Reconquista be the same?
Please see:
Putting this article under "Reconquista" is puzzling, at least. Doesn't the expression mean specifically the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, which ended with the taking of Granada in 1492? And, if Alcácer Quibir was "Reconquista", why not the taking of Ceuta, Tangiers, and many other town during the 15th and 16th centuries?
Nuno Gabriel Cabral
18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Without wishing to be too pedantic I am surprised that the article on this battle is in Portuguese. Surely, since the battle was fought on Moroccan soil priority should be given to the Arabic name - Wadi al-Makhazin. The battle is commemorated in Morocco as well as in Portugal with a major square in Casablanca bearing the name (formerly Place Verdun)in recognition of its impotance in resisting Portuguese encroachment on the country. Wildbe 11:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The Reconquista ended in 1492 for the Spaniards and ended way before for the Portuguese and Alcacer Quibir is in Morocco hence this battle cannot fit the Reconquista timeline João Farinhote ( talk) 00:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The campaign box does not even show this battle as a reconquista battle and anyways, its got nothing to do with the Christian re-conquest of Iberia. I'm removing it because the reconquista is widely acknowledged to have ended at Granada. Tourskin 03:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
i couldnt find any information about Ottoman Empire. Actually, Battle of Three Kings also fighted by Ottoman Turks. Morocco was a vassale state of Ottoman Empire and were supported by Ottoman Troops in Algeria. The moroccan Emperor has also asked help to Turks. Rasmazan Pasha the beylerbeyi of Algeria make the war decisitive. The book A history of the Maghrib in the Islamic period by Jamil M. Abun-Nasr page 214.
i made a few changes today, i couldnt find any information about ramazan pasha in english but wel something in french wiki, as we know algeria speaks now french so i put an link to that website.. by the way moroccan cavaly were trained by turks because the moroccan king al malik was an ottoman commander for a long time i read somewhere, also canons were at the same style used same as the battle of mohac .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.212.81 ( talk) 16:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
After a good faith and unsuccessful attempt at finding sources for the Ottoman involvement I've removed them as participants. The Ottomans were involved, in some unspecified way, in the re-enthronement of Abdelmalik (which was 2 years before this battle), but I found no source mentioning them as combatants in this battle (Notably Britannica does not mention them at all). -- Tachfin ( talk) 03:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Flag of Morocco 1258 1659.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
Eu El-Rei
according to your source it's 18000 dead from both sides. not from the Moroccan side alone. therefore we will have to change it. or maybe try to bring another source. also it says "according to Mendonça", who was a portuguese soldier at that time, therefore not muslim chroniclers.
"Segundo Jerónimo de Mendonça morreram 18.000 muçulmanos, embora este valor respeite, por certo, ao total de baixas dos dois lados. Subtraindo-lhe o total de cristão mortos (8-11.000), ficamos com um mínimo de 7.000 muçulmanos mortos."
I propose to either leave it unknown in the Moroccan side, as there are no reliable sources that gives us the exact number, or put 7000 and "portuguese sources" underneath it.
-- AZSH ( talk) 01:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it'll be better as unknown, or maybe "high" then. I believe it should be stated that the casualties vary a lot according to various sources. But thank you for correcting me anyways Eu El-Rei ( talk) 01:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
With regard to this revert:
I'm not sure where the claim that the cannon and musket were ottoman supplied, not the troops
comes from since the reliable source that I added mentions the Ottoman troops.
Abd al-Malik awaited them with a large army partly supplied by the Ottoman Turks, who were backing his claim to the throne. It combined Moroccan cavalry with Ottoman musket-armed infantry and cannon. [1]
Other sources such as this leave no doubt about the Ottoman's presence in this battle:
Abdul-Mālik travelled to Istanbul in 1574 and procured an order from the Ottoman sultan to the beylerbey of Algeria to provide him with troops to capture power from al-Mutawwakil. After achieving power with Ottoman help, "Abdul-Mälik had the Friday prayer said in the name of the Ottoman sultan, dressed like a Turk, and organized his army after Ottoman patterns. Besides Turkish troops, his army included Andalusian, Zuwawa, and tribal warriors from Morocco; but its officers were Turks. Nevertheless Abdul-Mälik maintained regular diplomatic contacts with the Spaniards in order to assure them that he would not allow Morocco to be used as a base for Ottoman attacks against them, and apparently also in order to be able to call upon them for help, should the Turks attempt to annex Morocco to the regency of Algiers (Yahya, 1981, pp. 68-9). The military presence of the Turks in Morocco constituted, however, a threat to the remaining Portuguese presidios at Tangier, al-Jadida (Mazagan), and Sabta. It was to Portugal, therefore, that the deposed Sultan al-Mutawakkil went for help after taking refuge in Tangier. In the summer of 1578 a Portuguese army led by King Sebastian (1557 78), and accompanied by al-Mutawakkil, invaded northern Morocco. At Wadi al-Makhazin, a tributary of Wadi Lukkus, this army was routed by "Abdul-Mälik's on 4 August 1578. Moroccan sources, inclined to exaggerate the importance of this Muslim victory, give the number of soldiers Sebastian brought with him as 125,000. It seems certain that the Portuguese army was about one-fifth this size. Nevertheless the Muslim victory had far-reaching consequences for Morocco. Abdul-Mälik died suddenly during the battle, and a tradition recorded by al-Yifrani (1888, p. 77) has it, that the Turkish commander of his army had him poisoned in order to secure total Ottoman control over Morocco. Since King Sebastian and al-Mutawwakil were also killed in this battle, it came to be known as The Battle of the Three Kings'. Whatever truth there might have been in the account that Abdul-Mälik was poisoned by the Turks, they could not take over the affairs of Morocco after this victory to which they contributed much. Abdul-Mälik's brother Ahmad, who had supported him in overthrowing al-Mutawwakil, succeeded him without difficulty and was able to steer Morocco away from political dependence on either the Turks or the Christians. [2]
M.Bitton ( talk) 23:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The battle of the Three Kings, named after the king of Portugal and the two claimants to the Saadian sultanate, took place at Ksar el Kebir, a city between Tangier and Fez, on 4 August 1578. The Saadian claimant 'Abd al-Malik used not only Ottoman Janissaries but a contingent of Andalusi Muslims who had been expelled from Iberia and who, it was often reported, attacked the Spanish and Portuguese with a special vengeance. The Ottomans and Saadians were also supplied with advanced artillery. [3]
The situation was different with Mūlāy Aḥmad [than with Abd al-Malik]. His signature victory, the Battle of Wādī al-Makhāzin, was won without direct Ottoman assistance. In fact, al-Manṣūr had reason to suspect that the Ottomans were trying to eliminate him as sultan of Morocco. [5]
Abd al-Malik awaited them with a large army partly supplied by the Ottoman Turks, who were backing his claim to the throne. It combined Moroccan cavalry with Ottoman musket-armed infantry and cannon.. This is as clear as it gets.
Besides Turkish troops, his army included Andalusian, Zuwawa, and tribal warriors from Morocco; but its officers were Turks.
Ahmad al-Mansur seems to have attributed the Moroccan victory at the battle of the three kings to the salutary influence which the Turkish troops and officers who served under Abdul-Malik had on the discipline and methods of warfare of the rest of the army.If anything, this further cements the Ottoman presence in this battle. M.Bitton ( talk) 21:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Based on the review of sources I've discussed in this section above (see also the reference list at the end of this section), I am removing "Ottoman Empire" for now from the list of belligerents/combatants in the infobox since no source, with the confusing exception of Fromherz (see comments above), mentions a Janissary or Ottoman army being present at the battle. From the perspective of both a general and an academic reader, including "Ottoman Empire" or "Ottoman Algeria" would mislead readers into assuming the opposite, and therefore does not improve reader understanding as per the description of this parameter at Template:Infobox military conflict. Ottoman indirect support for Abd al-Malik can be more helpfully explained in the main text itself; I've already added the beginnings of that in a new section. As per MOS:INFOBOX, the infobox is meant to summarize the basic facts of the article; it is inappropriate to add information there that misleads readers as to the content of the article itself. Further explanation:
M.Bitton: This edit was unwarranted and felt needlessly insulting. I'm trying to present the perspectives offered across all sources, not cherry-pick the ones that support one point or the other, and you've clearly unbalanced it significantly. I will look to request fresh eyes on this page since this is going nowhere with all the gatekeeping on both our parts. I will try the third opinion option first.
To any new editors: feel free to see discussion above and the edit history around the question of Ottoman participation in the battle. If help is needed to access any of the sources, I can probably assist with that if necessary. R Prazeres ( talk) 00:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Here's the content that you added: Two major monographs about the battle, by E.W. Bovill and Pierre Berthier, which recount the battle in detail and review the forces involved, do not indicate any presence of an army or contingent sent by the Ottomans.
Since you're familiar with the WP:OR policy, there's no need to remind you about what it says with regard to "facts, allegations, and ideas" for which no reliable, published sources exist. Therefore, my only question to you is this: which source is meant to support the above statement? M.Bitton ( talk) 00:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
This issue is open for all editors to weigh in. I posted a request for
third opinion first, but no volunteer was forthcoming, so I think it's sensible to move on to a
Request for Comment (RfC), as was already suggested earlier by M.Bitton. The aim is to solicit from the community a wider consensus on how to proceed with regards to the issues above. I'll additionally publish a notice of it on the
Ottoman Empire,
Morocco, and
Portugal WikiProject pages (other suggestions also welcome).
I'd like the RfC to be based one or two questions like this: "1. Was the Ottoman Empire a participant in this battle? 2. How should information on this question be presented in the article?", or something to that effect. I think it should remain as open-ended question as much as possible (not a this-or-that choice), but I'm concerned about making it not clear or concise enough for a productive discussion. So feedback on how the question(s) should be formulated is welcome here.
R Prazeres (
talk)
22:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
References
The situation was different with Mūlāy Aḥmad. His signature victory, the Battle of Wādī al-Makhāzin, was won without direct Ottoman assistance. In fact, al-Manṣūr had reason to suspect that the Ottomans were trying to eliminate him as sultan of Morocco.
Hello 2A02:A445:FAD3:1:618C:48D2:62EC:6E28 ( talk) 16:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Rifles in the 16th century? I doubt this. Rifles only appeared after the Napoleon wars - early 19th century - to my knowledge. The weapons were probably muskettes or similar smoothbore and muzzleloading firearms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.188.253 ( talk) 05:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Please man who ever in charge of this page please accept those changes that i added...those changes are in the Arabic and the French version also they are mentioned in the "Strength"... CappuccinoSs ( talk) 13:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Those supporters that I added are mentioned in the "Strength" also in the Arabic version and the French version of the battle of Alcacer Quibir's page.. CappuccinoSs ( talk) 13:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@ M.Bitton Why do you think that the Mercenaries deserve to be in the belligerent list? The guidelines state that: "this is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict" DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 01:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Alcácer Quibir article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an article badly in need of attention. There are not factual details (which exist) beside the legend.
"The Portuguese army was small. According to the battle legend, young King Sebastião promised to his men that the cross would win against the crescent and that they didn't need to fight: He could kill every Moor on Earth by himself. The soldiers ran away from the Plaza of the city, and after a couple of hours, when they came back to Alcacer Quibir, neither their king nor the Moors were there. The battle was won by the Moors." --> this must be part of a legend!
lots of issues | leave me a message 09:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not quite certain if this article is quite neutral, or at least very Encylopaedic. I agree that it needs attention.
I agree about NPOV problems. This article shows a bias against the Portuguese- and the mention of "regime change" is completely unnecessary.
As the originator of the basic form this article has had since 11 November 2005 (just look in the history to see what a lamentable state it was in before then) I strongly deny any personal anti-Portuguese bias. Quite the reverse: my partner is half-Portuguese and Portugal is one of my favourite countries of all those I have ever visited. If there is bias in the article it is carried over from my principal English-language source (detailed at the foot of the article); but it does not seem possible to represent the campaign as anything other than unwise, and the battle as a disaster for Portugal. I was surprised that I could not find a viable source for this major battle later than the mid-19th century, and if anyone can contribute better, updated and more detailed information I wish they would do so. Some people have made some valuable additions but I agree that plenty more needs to be done on this entry – especially perhaps from the Moorish side – and I know I am not competent to do it.
Re ‘regime change’: the term, as applied to the 16th century, is of course anachronistic, but it seems a useful shorthand description for what Sebastian was trying to do: replace one ruler with another whom he hoped would be more sympathetic or pliable to his cause. If anyone has a better way of expressing this let them do so. Cenedi 13:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added two sources that are in the English language. I think they are very good, especially E. W. Bovill's work. He was a student of the Sahara. His book seems very balanced and is very detailed as to the Muslim combatants. Bartam ( talk) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
As a Portuguese and a historian I find this article very balanced and aligned to all that I have read about the subject. It does conflict with the heavily romanticized version taught in Portuguese elementary schools and avoids all the hearsay about all the proclamations that the king and various nobles are supposed to have made before and during the battle but that is a key strength. It could be longer as the situation in Morocco was complex and the Portuguese had initially counted on more support and a more divided country also it could expand a little on the interactions between Portugal and Castile before, during and after the battle but these are nice to haves. I like the article.
The battle was a complete disaster for Portugal then one of the wealthiest Empires and joint with the Spanish occupation heavily accelerated its decline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA13:F542:2C80:44C6:42BB:2A2A:C002 ( talk) 06:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
shouldnt the name of this battle in this article and the name of this battle in the Campaignbox Reconquista be the same?
Please see:
Putting this article under "Reconquista" is puzzling, at least. Doesn't the expression mean specifically the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, which ended with the taking of Granada in 1492? And, if Alcácer Quibir was "Reconquista", why not the taking of Ceuta, Tangiers, and many other town during the 15th and 16th centuries?
Nuno Gabriel Cabral
18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Without wishing to be too pedantic I am surprised that the article on this battle is in Portuguese. Surely, since the battle was fought on Moroccan soil priority should be given to the Arabic name - Wadi al-Makhazin. The battle is commemorated in Morocco as well as in Portugal with a major square in Casablanca bearing the name (formerly Place Verdun)in recognition of its impotance in resisting Portuguese encroachment on the country. Wildbe 11:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The Reconquista ended in 1492 for the Spaniards and ended way before for the Portuguese and Alcacer Quibir is in Morocco hence this battle cannot fit the Reconquista timeline João Farinhote ( talk) 00:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The campaign box does not even show this battle as a reconquista battle and anyways, its got nothing to do with the Christian re-conquest of Iberia. I'm removing it because the reconquista is widely acknowledged to have ended at Granada. Tourskin 03:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
i couldnt find any information about Ottoman Empire. Actually, Battle of Three Kings also fighted by Ottoman Turks. Morocco was a vassale state of Ottoman Empire and were supported by Ottoman Troops in Algeria. The moroccan Emperor has also asked help to Turks. Rasmazan Pasha the beylerbeyi of Algeria make the war decisitive. The book A history of the Maghrib in the Islamic period by Jamil M. Abun-Nasr page 214.
i made a few changes today, i couldnt find any information about ramazan pasha in english but wel something in french wiki, as we know algeria speaks now french so i put an link to that website.. by the way moroccan cavaly were trained by turks because the moroccan king al malik was an ottoman commander for a long time i read somewhere, also canons were at the same style used same as the battle of mohac .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.212.81 ( talk) 16:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
After a good faith and unsuccessful attempt at finding sources for the Ottoman involvement I've removed them as participants. The Ottomans were involved, in some unspecified way, in the re-enthronement of Abdelmalik (which was 2 years before this battle), but I found no source mentioning them as combatants in this battle (Notably Britannica does not mention them at all). -- Tachfin ( talk) 03:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Flag of Morocco 1258 1659.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
Eu El-Rei
according to your source it's 18000 dead from both sides. not from the Moroccan side alone. therefore we will have to change it. or maybe try to bring another source. also it says "according to Mendonça", who was a portuguese soldier at that time, therefore not muslim chroniclers.
"Segundo Jerónimo de Mendonça morreram 18.000 muçulmanos, embora este valor respeite, por certo, ao total de baixas dos dois lados. Subtraindo-lhe o total de cristão mortos (8-11.000), ficamos com um mínimo de 7.000 muçulmanos mortos."
I propose to either leave it unknown in the Moroccan side, as there are no reliable sources that gives us the exact number, or put 7000 and "portuguese sources" underneath it.
-- AZSH ( talk) 01:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it'll be better as unknown, or maybe "high" then. I believe it should be stated that the casualties vary a lot according to various sources. But thank you for correcting me anyways Eu El-Rei ( talk) 01:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
With regard to this revert:
I'm not sure where the claim that the cannon and musket were ottoman supplied, not the troops
comes from since the reliable source that I added mentions the Ottoman troops.
Abd al-Malik awaited them with a large army partly supplied by the Ottoman Turks, who were backing his claim to the throne. It combined Moroccan cavalry with Ottoman musket-armed infantry and cannon. [1]
Other sources such as this leave no doubt about the Ottoman's presence in this battle:
Abdul-Mālik travelled to Istanbul in 1574 and procured an order from the Ottoman sultan to the beylerbey of Algeria to provide him with troops to capture power from al-Mutawwakil. After achieving power with Ottoman help, "Abdul-Mälik had the Friday prayer said in the name of the Ottoman sultan, dressed like a Turk, and organized his army after Ottoman patterns. Besides Turkish troops, his army included Andalusian, Zuwawa, and tribal warriors from Morocco; but its officers were Turks. Nevertheless Abdul-Mälik maintained regular diplomatic contacts with the Spaniards in order to assure them that he would not allow Morocco to be used as a base for Ottoman attacks against them, and apparently also in order to be able to call upon them for help, should the Turks attempt to annex Morocco to the regency of Algiers (Yahya, 1981, pp. 68-9). The military presence of the Turks in Morocco constituted, however, a threat to the remaining Portuguese presidios at Tangier, al-Jadida (Mazagan), and Sabta. It was to Portugal, therefore, that the deposed Sultan al-Mutawakkil went for help after taking refuge in Tangier. In the summer of 1578 a Portuguese army led by King Sebastian (1557 78), and accompanied by al-Mutawakkil, invaded northern Morocco. At Wadi al-Makhazin, a tributary of Wadi Lukkus, this army was routed by "Abdul-Mälik's on 4 August 1578. Moroccan sources, inclined to exaggerate the importance of this Muslim victory, give the number of soldiers Sebastian brought with him as 125,000. It seems certain that the Portuguese army was about one-fifth this size. Nevertheless the Muslim victory had far-reaching consequences for Morocco. Abdul-Mälik died suddenly during the battle, and a tradition recorded by al-Yifrani (1888, p. 77) has it, that the Turkish commander of his army had him poisoned in order to secure total Ottoman control over Morocco. Since King Sebastian and al-Mutawwakil were also killed in this battle, it came to be known as The Battle of the Three Kings'. Whatever truth there might have been in the account that Abdul-Mälik was poisoned by the Turks, they could not take over the affairs of Morocco after this victory to which they contributed much. Abdul-Mälik's brother Ahmad, who had supported him in overthrowing al-Mutawwakil, succeeded him without difficulty and was able to steer Morocco away from political dependence on either the Turks or the Christians. [2]
M.Bitton ( talk) 23:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The battle of the Three Kings, named after the king of Portugal and the two claimants to the Saadian sultanate, took place at Ksar el Kebir, a city between Tangier and Fez, on 4 August 1578. The Saadian claimant 'Abd al-Malik used not only Ottoman Janissaries but a contingent of Andalusi Muslims who had been expelled from Iberia and who, it was often reported, attacked the Spanish and Portuguese with a special vengeance. The Ottomans and Saadians were also supplied with advanced artillery. [3]
The situation was different with Mūlāy Aḥmad [than with Abd al-Malik]. His signature victory, the Battle of Wādī al-Makhāzin, was won without direct Ottoman assistance. In fact, al-Manṣūr had reason to suspect that the Ottomans were trying to eliminate him as sultan of Morocco. [5]
Abd al-Malik awaited them with a large army partly supplied by the Ottoman Turks, who were backing his claim to the throne. It combined Moroccan cavalry with Ottoman musket-armed infantry and cannon.. This is as clear as it gets.
Besides Turkish troops, his army included Andalusian, Zuwawa, and tribal warriors from Morocco; but its officers were Turks.
Ahmad al-Mansur seems to have attributed the Moroccan victory at the battle of the three kings to the salutary influence which the Turkish troops and officers who served under Abdul-Malik had on the discipline and methods of warfare of the rest of the army.If anything, this further cements the Ottoman presence in this battle. M.Bitton ( talk) 21:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Based on the review of sources I've discussed in this section above (see also the reference list at the end of this section), I am removing "Ottoman Empire" for now from the list of belligerents/combatants in the infobox since no source, with the confusing exception of Fromherz (see comments above), mentions a Janissary or Ottoman army being present at the battle. From the perspective of both a general and an academic reader, including "Ottoman Empire" or "Ottoman Algeria" would mislead readers into assuming the opposite, and therefore does not improve reader understanding as per the description of this parameter at Template:Infobox military conflict. Ottoman indirect support for Abd al-Malik can be more helpfully explained in the main text itself; I've already added the beginnings of that in a new section. As per MOS:INFOBOX, the infobox is meant to summarize the basic facts of the article; it is inappropriate to add information there that misleads readers as to the content of the article itself. Further explanation:
M.Bitton: This edit was unwarranted and felt needlessly insulting. I'm trying to present the perspectives offered across all sources, not cherry-pick the ones that support one point or the other, and you've clearly unbalanced it significantly. I will look to request fresh eyes on this page since this is going nowhere with all the gatekeeping on both our parts. I will try the third opinion option first.
To any new editors: feel free to see discussion above and the edit history around the question of Ottoman participation in the battle. If help is needed to access any of the sources, I can probably assist with that if necessary. R Prazeres ( talk) 00:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Here's the content that you added: Two major monographs about the battle, by E.W. Bovill and Pierre Berthier, which recount the battle in detail and review the forces involved, do not indicate any presence of an army or contingent sent by the Ottomans.
Since you're familiar with the WP:OR policy, there's no need to remind you about what it says with regard to "facts, allegations, and ideas" for which no reliable, published sources exist. Therefore, my only question to you is this: which source is meant to support the above statement? M.Bitton ( talk) 00:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
This issue is open for all editors to weigh in. I posted a request for
third opinion first, but no volunteer was forthcoming, so I think it's sensible to move on to a
Request for Comment (RfC), as was already suggested earlier by M.Bitton. The aim is to solicit from the community a wider consensus on how to proceed with regards to the issues above. I'll additionally publish a notice of it on the
Ottoman Empire,
Morocco, and
Portugal WikiProject pages (other suggestions also welcome).
I'd like the RfC to be based one or two questions like this: "1. Was the Ottoman Empire a participant in this battle? 2. How should information on this question be presented in the article?", or something to that effect. I think it should remain as open-ended question as much as possible (not a this-or-that choice), but I'm concerned about making it not clear or concise enough for a productive discussion. So feedback on how the question(s) should be formulated is welcome here.
R Prazeres (
talk)
22:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
References
The situation was different with Mūlāy Aḥmad. His signature victory, the Battle of Wādī al-Makhāzin, was won without direct Ottoman assistance. In fact, al-Manṣūr had reason to suspect that the Ottomans were trying to eliminate him as sultan of Morocco.
Hello 2A02:A445:FAD3:1:618C:48D2:62EC:6E28 ( talk) 16:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Rifles in the 16th century? I doubt this. Rifles only appeared after the Napoleon wars - early 19th century - to my knowledge. The weapons were probably muskettes or similar smoothbore and muzzleloading firearms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.188.253 ( talk) 05:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Please man who ever in charge of this page please accept those changes that i added...those changes are in the Arabic and the French version also they are mentioned in the "Strength"... CappuccinoSs ( talk) 13:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Those supporters that I added are mentioned in the "Strength" also in the Arabic version and the French version of the battle of Alcacer Quibir's page.. CappuccinoSs ( talk) 13:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@ M.Bitton Why do you think that the Mercenaries deserve to be in the belligerent list? The guidelines state that: "this is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict" DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) 01:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)