A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 25, 2015, November 25, 2016, November 25, 2019, January 2, 2020, and November 25, 2023. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Guerra de Granada from es.wikipedia. |
The following was removed. I have broken it down and interspersed my own comments. This is why reliance should not be placed on books for a general audience. They are usually simplistic and out of date.
The Granada War took place on the cusp of the introduction of gunpowder, an invention which would greatly change the style in which wars were fought.
Gunpowder was introduced to Europe over two hundred years earlier. Cannonry was first recorded in European warfare in the Four Lords' War in 1324. 1482–92 is hardly the "cusp". That said, it is true that gunpowder greatly changed the face of warfare.
It still maintained many features of medieval warfare, such as mounted knights with codes of chivalry, but the open-field battles upon which knights shined were rarer. Instead, the war saw a greater focus on sieges backed by cannons.
While "mounted knights with codes of chivalry" were an important feature of medieval warfare, the implicatioin that open-field battles were also is false. Sieges were far more important in the Middle Ages than open-field encounters. Further, knights were often slaughtered in the open field, though sometimes they "shone". The only real difference was the replacement of traditional siege weapons by cannons.
The armies fielded included more professional soldiers rather than the peasant levies of earlier warfare; various international troops fought in it as well, including a group of English archers who aided the Spanish.
Professional soldiers were commonplace throughout much of Europe for centuries before the 1480s. Even the concepts of money fiefs and retinues blur the distinction: they were as paid as modern armies. Further, international warfare was also commonplace in medieval Europe and a good fighting man could find employ just about anywhere. Srnec ( talk) 04:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Adding the translation tag to incorporate and translate all the info from the Spanish Wikipedia, which is much more extensive. Your help is welcome. -- Polylerus ( talk) 23:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Iñaki LL, re this edit: I'm not particularly disputing you on the facts here. There's lots of very interesting things to be said about the position of Muslims & conversos in Spain after the Granada War, and Wikipedia coverage of it should definitely be increased, but I don't think your phrasing works for this Granada War article itself. The phrasing is very awkward - autochthonous is not a word frequently used in English, and "increased aggression" is vague and potentially misleading. (Since this is an article on a war, it makes it sound like the war continued, rather than stifiling decrees / laws / tensions.) I'm not sure why you're removing the link to the converso article either. Finally, while the "authorities" were indeed a problem, the Christian "settlers" were an equal problem to Granada, and lots of tensions I refer to are due to things like local Andalusian Christian nobility who had moved in getting in a dispute with a morisco rival, and sometimes playing the "they're not a loyal Castilian" card. The book "Muslims in Spain, 1500-1614" goes into this in more detail, and I've been meaning to add some info from it into articles like morisco... but all this would happen later, and space is limited in the lede, so I certainly think my phrasing gets the point across and doesn't undersell the problems Spain's Muslims would face. If anything, I think your phrasing is the one that underplays their problems, as it makes it sound like the only problem was the government which wasn't entirely true. (Indeed, the royal government pursued a contradictory policy in Granada, and sometimes stepped in *in favor* of the Moriscos in disputes. Not that this would last...)
Any thoughts on a compromise lede? SnowFire ( talk) 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
"The aftermath of the war saw an end to tolerance to religions other than Catholic on the Iberian peninsula. The Jews were forced to convert to Christianity or be exiled in 1492. In 1501, all of Granada's Muslims were obliged to either convert to Christianity, become slaves, or be exiled; by 1526 this prohibition spread to the rest of Spain. "New Christians" ( conversos) came to be accused of crypto-Islam and crypto-Judaism, often accurately. Spain would go on to model its national aspirations as the 'guardian of Christianity and Catholicism'." Iñaki LL ( talk) 09:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The battle of the Axarquia -so-called- was not a victory but was in fact the disastrous military incursion in which a large Christian raiding force suffered catastrophic defeat 'near Malaga,' as mentioned in the previous sentence in this article. In the same year, Boabdil was captured near Lucena, fifty miles to the north, in the modern province of Cordoba. Changing test accordingly. JF42 ( talk) 12:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"so-called Reconquista" usually implies the name is inaccurate? Seems not needed here."
It is fair to say that the term 'reconquista' is disputed, being regarded by some as a term that derived from a distorted interpretion of Peninsula history which saw La Reconquista as "a continuous phenomenon, dating from the legendary battle of Covadonga (Asturia) in 722, by which "the Christian Iberian kingdoms opposed and conquered the Muslim kingdoms understood as a common enemy." (Wikipedia 'Reconquista' )
As the Wikipedia Reconquista article goes on to point out: 'Many recent historians dispute the whole concept of Reconquista (as well as that of a prior conquista by the Moors) as a concept created a posteriori in the service of later political goals. It has been called a "myth".[6][7][8][9][10][11] The idea of a "reconquest" that lasts for eight centuries was called into question by José Ortega y Gasset, one of the early Spanish intellectuals to do so.[12]
So, although the reference in the excised phrase is perhaps a little too condensed, the point is worth including. Are we allowed to cite Wikipedia articles in footnotes?
JF42 ( talk) 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Why should Clodfelter, who has no academic specialization in this field or time period(s) be used as a source?? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 15:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
"Granada in its current form had not been Christian before the Reconquista;[3] however the corresponding region was held by the Christian Visigothic Kingdom prior to the 8th century Umayyad conquest of Hispania."
So you're saying there were Christians there but just not in a state called Granada? That seems like really splitting hairs, especially as the Emirate of Granada was not one continuous state throughout all the Muslim rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:BF9A:BD00:3CDB:AE1F:FE41:EF71 ( talk) 05:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I read the source and it was hard what to look for as the quote supporting it wasn't specified. However, nothing in the text supported the assumptions made. A part said that Muslim sources of the time considered it a conquest. Nothing about the general view is of conquest, or of there being no Christian rule in the region before - which is patently false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:BF9A:BD00:3CDB:AE1F:FE41:EF71 ( talk) 05:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Crucs and Iñaki LL: There's a lot of ways to phrase this, but I think that the shift to proto-Spain being a full-on Christian nation as a core part of its identity where Muslims & Jews were by definition traitors is important. Crucs, I don't think the point you're trying to make is contested or relevant? Exactly whether the Emirate of Granada was tolerant of Christians isn't important here. That sentence in the lede is talking about through all of Castile itself. Now, to be clear, the whole idea of "convivencia" is a bit of a lie to begin with - in the 1100s and 1200s, people fought each other all the time over petty, stupid, religious shit. But what is true is that Muslim and Christian polities existed side by side and made makeshift alliances and trade and the like. As the article discusses, Boabdil works in alliance with proto-Spain for a long time during this war and is promised being allowed to be a Duke of his territory. Something like this is totally inconceivable in the Spain of the 1500s - a Muslim Duke in official alliance with the royalty?
If you have better ideas on how to phrase this Crucs, we're open to opinions, but that sentence was never attempting to say anything about the fallen Emirate of Granada. (And to be clear, regardless of the number of Christians within old Granada, the old Emirate absolutely DID work and ally with Christians politically when convenient during the 1300s and the like.) SnowFire ( talk) 02:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
When the Catholic Monarchs (ie: Ferdinand and Isabel) finally after years of war against the Moors finally seized and entered Granada, there were no native Christians living in the region or the city. Yet, here we have this erroneous notion of "convivencia." This idea that under a benevolent Islamic rule, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in harmony side by side. There were no Christains living in Granada under Islamic rule. How then did the Catholic Monarchs end this so called "convivencia" if no Christians were living in Granada at the time? This claim being made by @Iñaki does not hold up to the historical facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucs ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I can provide multiples sources of reputable and scholarly information to highlight how there were no natives Christians living in Granada. One of these sources I provided was evidently erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucs ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Co-existence? The entire peninsula was thrust into perpetual warfare for centuries. Co-existence is not the proper term. They did not live in harmony side by side. This is factually untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucs ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 25, 2015, November 25, 2016, November 25, 2019, January 2, 2020, and November 25, 2023. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Guerra de Granada from es.wikipedia. |
The following was removed. I have broken it down and interspersed my own comments. This is why reliance should not be placed on books for a general audience. They are usually simplistic and out of date.
The Granada War took place on the cusp of the introduction of gunpowder, an invention which would greatly change the style in which wars were fought.
Gunpowder was introduced to Europe over two hundred years earlier. Cannonry was first recorded in European warfare in the Four Lords' War in 1324. 1482–92 is hardly the "cusp". That said, it is true that gunpowder greatly changed the face of warfare.
It still maintained many features of medieval warfare, such as mounted knights with codes of chivalry, but the open-field battles upon which knights shined were rarer. Instead, the war saw a greater focus on sieges backed by cannons.
While "mounted knights with codes of chivalry" were an important feature of medieval warfare, the implicatioin that open-field battles were also is false. Sieges were far more important in the Middle Ages than open-field encounters. Further, knights were often slaughtered in the open field, though sometimes they "shone". The only real difference was the replacement of traditional siege weapons by cannons.
The armies fielded included more professional soldiers rather than the peasant levies of earlier warfare; various international troops fought in it as well, including a group of English archers who aided the Spanish.
Professional soldiers were commonplace throughout much of Europe for centuries before the 1480s. Even the concepts of money fiefs and retinues blur the distinction: they were as paid as modern armies. Further, international warfare was also commonplace in medieval Europe and a good fighting man could find employ just about anywhere. Srnec ( talk) 04:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Adding the translation tag to incorporate and translate all the info from the Spanish Wikipedia, which is much more extensive. Your help is welcome. -- Polylerus ( talk) 23:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Iñaki LL, re this edit: I'm not particularly disputing you on the facts here. There's lots of very interesting things to be said about the position of Muslims & conversos in Spain after the Granada War, and Wikipedia coverage of it should definitely be increased, but I don't think your phrasing works for this Granada War article itself. The phrasing is very awkward - autochthonous is not a word frequently used in English, and "increased aggression" is vague and potentially misleading. (Since this is an article on a war, it makes it sound like the war continued, rather than stifiling decrees / laws / tensions.) I'm not sure why you're removing the link to the converso article either. Finally, while the "authorities" were indeed a problem, the Christian "settlers" were an equal problem to Granada, and lots of tensions I refer to are due to things like local Andalusian Christian nobility who had moved in getting in a dispute with a morisco rival, and sometimes playing the "they're not a loyal Castilian" card. The book "Muslims in Spain, 1500-1614" goes into this in more detail, and I've been meaning to add some info from it into articles like morisco... but all this would happen later, and space is limited in the lede, so I certainly think my phrasing gets the point across and doesn't undersell the problems Spain's Muslims would face. If anything, I think your phrasing is the one that underplays their problems, as it makes it sound like the only problem was the government which wasn't entirely true. (Indeed, the royal government pursued a contradictory policy in Granada, and sometimes stepped in *in favor* of the Moriscos in disputes. Not that this would last...)
Any thoughts on a compromise lede? SnowFire ( talk) 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
"The aftermath of the war saw an end to tolerance to religions other than Catholic on the Iberian peninsula. The Jews were forced to convert to Christianity or be exiled in 1492. In 1501, all of Granada's Muslims were obliged to either convert to Christianity, become slaves, or be exiled; by 1526 this prohibition spread to the rest of Spain. "New Christians" ( conversos) came to be accused of crypto-Islam and crypto-Judaism, often accurately. Spain would go on to model its national aspirations as the 'guardian of Christianity and Catholicism'." Iñaki LL ( talk) 09:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The battle of the Axarquia -so-called- was not a victory but was in fact the disastrous military incursion in which a large Christian raiding force suffered catastrophic defeat 'near Malaga,' as mentioned in the previous sentence in this article. In the same year, Boabdil was captured near Lucena, fifty miles to the north, in the modern province of Cordoba. Changing test accordingly. JF42 ( talk) 12:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"so-called Reconquista" usually implies the name is inaccurate? Seems not needed here."
It is fair to say that the term 'reconquista' is disputed, being regarded by some as a term that derived from a distorted interpretion of Peninsula history which saw La Reconquista as "a continuous phenomenon, dating from the legendary battle of Covadonga (Asturia) in 722, by which "the Christian Iberian kingdoms opposed and conquered the Muslim kingdoms understood as a common enemy." (Wikipedia 'Reconquista' )
As the Wikipedia Reconquista article goes on to point out: 'Many recent historians dispute the whole concept of Reconquista (as well as that of a prior conquista by the Moors) as a concept created a posteriori in the service of later political goals. It has been called a "myth".[6][7][8][9][10][11] The idea of a "reconquest" that lasts for eight centuries was called into question by José Ortega y Gasset, one of the early Spanish intellectuals to do so.[12]
So, although the reference in the excised phrase is perhaps a little too condensed, the point is worth including. Are we allowed to cite Wikipedia articles in footnotes?
JF42 ( talk) 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Why should Clodfelter, who has no academic specialization in this field or time period(s) be used as a source?? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 15:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
"Granada in its current form had not been Christian before the Reconquista;[3] however the corresponding region was held by the Christian Visigothic Kingdom prior to the 8th century Umayyad conquest of Hispania."
So you're saying there were Christians there but just not in a state called Granada? That seems like really splitting hairs, especially as the Emirate of Granada was not one continuous state throughout all the Muslim rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:BF9A:BD00:3CDB:AE1F:FE41:EF71 ( talk) 05:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I read the source and it was hard what to look for as the quote supporting it wasn't specified. However, nothing in the text supported the assumptions made. A part said that Muslim sources of the time considered it a conquest. Nothing about the general view is of conquest, or of there being no Christian rule in the region before - which is patently false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:BF9A:BD00:3CDB:AE1F:FE41:EF71 ( talk) 05:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Crucs and Iñaki LL: There's a lot of ways to phrase this, but I think that the shift to proto-Spain being a full-on Christian nation as a core part of its identity where Muslims & Jews were by definition traitors is important. Crucs, I don't think the point you're trying to make is contested or relevant? Exactly whether the Emirate of Granada was tolerant of Christians isn't important here. That sentence in the lede is talking about through all of Castile itself. Now, to be clear, the whole idea of "convivencia" is a bit of a lie to begin with - in the 1100s and 1200s, people fought each other all the time over petty, stupid, religious shit. But what is true is that Muslim and Christian polities existed side by side and made makeshift alliances and trade and the like. As the article discusses, Boabdil works in alliance with proto-Spain for a long time during this war and is promised being allowed to be a Duke of his territory. Something like this is totally inconceivable in the Spain of the 1500s - a Muslim Duke in official alliance with the royalty?
If you have better ideas on how to phrase this Crucs, we're open to opinions, but that sentence was never attempting to say anything about the fallen Emirate of Granada. (And to be clear, regardless of the number of Christians within old Granada, the old Emirate absolutely DID work and ally with Christians politically when convenient during the 1300s and the like.) SnowFire ( talk) 02:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
When the Catholic Monarchs (ie: Ferdinand and Isabel) finally after years of war against the Moors finally seized and entered Granada, there were no native Christians living in the region or the city. Yet, here we have this erroneous notion of "convivencia." This idea that under a benevolent Islamic rule, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in harmony side by side. There were no Christains living in Granada under Islamic rule. How then did the Catholic Monarchs end this so called "convivencia" if no Christians were living in Granada at the time? This claim being made by @Iñaki does not hold up to the historical facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucs ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I can provide multiples sources of reputable and scholarly information to highlight how there were no natives Christians living in Granada. One of these sources I provided was evidently erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucs ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Co-existence? The entire peninsula was thrust into perpetual warfare for centuries. Co-existence is not the proper term. They did not live in harmony side by side. This is factually untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucs ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)