 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Over the next two centuries, this city would become one of the richest of the New World capitals." Where is the evidence for this? The sources I have read say it was an agricultural backwater. The rich capitals were where the Spanish found silver, etc. StonePeter ( talk) 02:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The name of the original city is not 'Cuidad Vieja', it was Santiago de los Caballeros. Ciudad Vieja was a name given to the settlement in later times. Given that it means "Old City', it is highly unlikely that conquistadors founding a city in the NEW WORLD would call their brand new settlement "Old City".
FYI: Cuidad Vieja was never the site of the old capital. Cuidad Vieja is the former site of Almolonga where De Alvarado's Mexican troops were quartered. Almolonga was not destroyed in the mudslide that buried the original Santiago de los Caballeros (which was to the East and a little higher up the slopes of the volcano). StonePeter ( talk) 02:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that the primary title of this article should be Captaincy General of Guatemala, with a note in the first sentence that it is also called Kingdom of Guatemala. This is the form of the es: wiki article [1]. (In fact, the es: wiki doesn't even have a Reino de Guatemala article [2] In addition, all the links into this article are through Captaincy General of Guatemala, and none are through Kingdom of Guatemala. Thus, I think Captaincy should take precedence over Kingdom, and am moving the article back while maintaining the article content about the Kingdom of Guatemala-- Erudy 12:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Kingdom of Guatemala is a better title because the Captaincy General did not come into existence until 1609. Spanish Wikipedia does have an article entitled "Reino de Guatemala", and it also concerns the period prior to 1609, just as this article on English Wikipedia does. 206.87.20.6 ( talk) 04:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Over the next two centuries, this city would become one of the richest of the New World capitals." Where is the evidence for this? The sources I have read say it was an agricultural backwater. The rich capitals were where the Spanish found silver, etc. StonePeter ( talk) 02:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The name of the original city is not 'Cuidad Vieja', it was Santiago de los Caballeros. Ciudad Vieja was a name given to the settlement in later times. Given that it means "Old City', it is highly unlikely that conquistadors founding a city in the NEW WORLD would call their brand new settlement "Old City".
FYI: Cuidad Vieja was never the site of the old capital. Cuidad Vieja is the former site of Almolonga where De Alvarado's Mexican troops were quartered. Almolonga was not destroyed in the mudslide that buried the original Santiago de los Caballeros (which was to the East and a little higher up the slopes of the volcano). StonePeter ( talk) 02:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that the primary title of this article should be Captaincy General of Guatemala, with a note in the first sentence that it is also called Kingdom of Guatemala. This is the form of the es: wiki article [1]. (In fact, the es: wiki doesn't even have a Reino de Guatemala article [2] In addition, all the links into this article are through Captaincy General of Guatemala, and none are through Kingdom of Guatemala. Thus, I think Captaincy should take precedence over Kingdom, and am moving the article back while maintaining the article content about the Kingdom of Guatemala-- Erudy 12:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Kingdom of Guatemala is a better title because the Captaincy General did not come into existence until 1609. Spanish Wikipedia does have an article entitled "Reino de Guatemala", and it also concerns the period prior to 1609, just as this article on English Wikipedia does. 206.87.20.6 ( talk) 04:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)