This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see there's a lot to edit here:
There's also lack of information of the period of Navarre under Spanish sovereignity, which is relevant because it was still a kingdom, not just formally as other regions of Castile but in laws and borders, keeping a semi-independence.
The article needs to be reorganized, dividing it maybe in several periodical sections in order to allow for more clarity.
I suggest the following plan:
At the bottom a list of kings and queens should be added as well.
If nobody disagrees, I will eventually procceed to do it in the following days/weeks.
-- Sugaar 22:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Almost as big as my additions to the original article, made last weekend. 217.140.193.123 01:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I want to point one thing that i think should be corrected, the image of the "arrano beltza" should be the black eagle over a red bottom, not yellow, the traditional coat of arms´ colour was always red. Layo 11:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Wetman misunderstood my citationneeded tag. I am not questioning the meaning of nava or hiri or herri. I doubt their conflation in the etymology of Navarra, Nafarroa, napar. The first lines in this very page offer another etymology. If you think that it comes from nava+hiri, you should attribute it to some authority. -- Error 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
That is impossible, Navarra was "conquered" by Castille in 1512 and the anexation of the iberian side of the kingdom signed in the "Cortes de Burgos" of July-1515. Altought Ferdinand the Catholic was regent in Castille the conquest isn't aragonese, but castillian.
-Fco
Documentation used: Historia de Navarra, el estado Vasco. Mikel Sorauren, Pamiela Ed., 1999. ISBN 84-7681-299-X. Will add to references. -- Sugaar 23:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
More changes (in the same lines):
Since experts are working on this, I am reluctant to insert my own tiny changes. But the next time someone is working on the paragraph where Roncevalles is mentioned twice along with the year (twice), you might merge those two sentences. One contains a correct pointer to Roncevalles/Roncevaux, the other (last) pointer isn't correctly cross-refenced and goes to a "lacks article."
As I saw that phrase I feared that this article had been vandalised at small scale... When I realized that it was actually being subject to very illustrative, coherent discussion I was pretty puzzled. It strikes me that with people who are so well-documented, a line could be added in such a prominent place that reeks so much of Basque nationalistic pollution; at least, from my point of view.
Apart from the "Early History" epigraph, the rest of the article, that is, when we actually talk about a Kingdom, seems to concede little or none importance to the Basque component. As you clearly state in the discussion, the language of the Kingdom was either Latin or Occitan, which means that, no matter how strong the resistance of the Vascones had been and how strong their numbers within the kingdom, they had assimilated the culture, if not of the Romans indeed of the Franks.
In fact, it is gathered from the statements about revolt against the Franks that Iñigo Arista simply rose to the position a previous envoyee of the Franks had held. So, he just became the king of a territory where most people of Vascone ancestry lived, probably together with many others from beyond the Pyrenees. Unfortunately this would also prove true of Castile, since at the time of its independence from León, most people in that mark came from Vascony, maybe Fernán González too. Would we say that Castile was the first independent Basque county in the world?
Now, do you reckon it is the most important thing to say in the summarising lines of the article that Navarre was "the first independent Basque kingdom for centuries"? How long did the Basqueness lasted if it was ever a founding feature? Is it in need for a historical background for more current affairs? It sounds as though there had to be a first Basque independent Whatever and we know not where to look for it.
However, the most astonishing of all is the remark "in the world"... Are there kingdoms in the Moon or is it suggesting that later there were other Basque Kingdoms in other places far away from the Basque fatherland? Whoever wrote it must clarify that; because Núñez de Balboa might have founded a Basque kingdom in Central America and I never heard of it... For the moment, I will erase that part.
I look forward to hearing your opinions on the rest of the phrase.
MiG-25 15:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, Occitan south of the Pyrenees was a thing of local minorities, Catalan poets, and Val d'Aran people. The Navarrese Romance was similar to Aragonese language. There are authors who hold the language of the Glosas Emilianenses as Navarrese Romance rather than Castilian. -- Error 20:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
A bit of background about it. The project started as a common endavour of PNV (majoritary in Biscay and Guipuzcoa) and the Carlists (the same in Alava and Navarra). Its stated aim was to salvage both the foral privileges in the new constitutional context and to create the conditions to counteract the anticlerical policies of the II republic (it has to be rememebered that both were at that time ultra-catholic, if not outright integrists). At one point, both parties quarrelled (rather unsurprisingly) and the Carlist withdrew its support to the project at the eleventh hour. Just party politics started the project, just party politics drowned it. Wllacer 12:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The representatives were elected by the people (in wich referendum) to do that? Was the "autonomy" in his election´s program? Is the vote of a "delegate" from a city like Tudela (11248 people) equal to the vote of a delegate of a village like Alsasua (3330 people). It is nonsense to take in consideration this, if not "illegal", at least "allegal", project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.225.36.178 ( talk) 23:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Sugaar You seem to have put a lot of work and interest in this and related articles. But i have serious doubts about the scholary outcome. I'm afraid you've followed a source which has mislead you.
I read about the so-called by you "905 leonese Chronicle" and it awoke my interest. I did a cursory search (google, wikipedia, Roger Collins' "Early Medieval Spain", ...) and i'm unable to locate it. Which, taking into account that Collins is one of the foremost scholars in Basque studies, makes me wonder.
From the context and date it could only be the Cronica de Alfonso III, whose text can be found at [2] (look for "Rotensis" and "Ad Sebastianum"). Using the later version -its latin is a little less barbarian- the "Uascones" are cited in §16 as "rebelantur" from Fruela I of Asturies, and §14 cites Pamplona in a context related to Alfonso I of Asturias. I'll reproduce the paragraph as it's very interesting.
14. Eo tempore populantur Primorias, Libana, Transmera, Supporter, Carranza, Bardulies que nunc appellatur Castella et pars maritima Gallecie; Alaba namque, Bizkai, Alaone et Urdunia a suis incolis reperiuntur semper esse possesse, sicut Pampilona [Degius est] atque Berroza ...
My Latin is rusty but there is no way to contort the meaning to imply that Alaba ... where dependent of Pamplona (which belongs to Degius ¿?). The paragraph AFAIK is the first written statement about the presumed authoctony of the basques. The Rotensis has a couple of textual variations in both paragraphs, which don't alter the meaning and a new cite of a rebellion (§25) during Ramiro I of Asturias' reign.
There are many other statements i think you were mistaken, but they need their time -- Wllacer 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- In that times Primorias ...Gallecie were (re)populated; for the inhabitans (incolis) who live (reperiuntur) in Alaba ... Urdunia have always held it , as it's the case (atque) with Pampilona and Berzosa.
All that is being disputed and reviewed (Spanish focused historiography has dominated for centuries and only now some Basque/Navarrese autoctonous research, as the book I quoted, is questioning large parts of it).
The text you mention is definitively not the one that Sorauren does, as Alfonso III is of a later date. Tomás Urzainqui and J.M. de Olaizola (La Navarra Marítima. Pamiela, 1998 -
ISBN
84-7681-293-0), say about that text:
They add
After making a strong criticism of some pro-Asturian authors, particularly García de Cortazar. They quote other authors, more in the pro-Pamplonese line: Gregorio Montreal (1986) says:
The identity of right between Western Basque and Navarrese is also aduced to claim a total historical identity of these territories. The authors also cirticise Sabino Arana on his claims that Biscay and Guipuscoa (and Alava) were independent, they say:
Your novecentist source, Llorente, starts claiming that Autrigones, Varduli and Caristii remained loyal to Rome. This is not clear at all. In fact, modern archaeology rather supports that the whole area was unruly in the 5th century (reaction to feudalization) and that whole "inner limes" was created around the Basque lands in that period. This explains well why we find the independent Vasconia in the High Middle Ages and not a Visigothic province. I really have no time nor patience to read all the nonsenses that have been said in the past centuries, I leave that task for the professional historians, who live on it. Regarding "nation-state", it's clear that ethnicity was at times a constituent factor of kingdoms and duchies in the Middle Ages and that often said countries were named for the people who lived there: Saxony, Swabia, Wales, Scotland, Vasconia/Gascony, Polania/Poland are clear cases. You can't just apply the same non-ethnic criteria that amy be valid for some areas for all cases without further consideration. In the case of Vasconia and later Pamplona/Navarre, it seems very clear that the ethnic factor was most important, even if the awareness of it is not always explicit. The Navarrese Right (aka Pyrenean Right) is not Roman-based nor of Germanic origin: it has its own local roots and it is consistent along all the territory that was once Basque and was able to keep their laws (fueros). -- Sugaar 10:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the relevant paragraph from the Albendensechronicle. Source is once again the site from the CSIC [4]
. In era DCCCCXLIIII surrexit in Panpilona rex nomine Sancio Garseanis. Fidei Xpi inseparabiliterque uenerantissimus fuit, pins in omnibus fidefibus misericorsque oppressis catholicis. Quid multa? In omnibus operibus obtimus perstitit. Belligerator aduersus gentes Ysmaelitarum multipficiter strages gessit super Sarrazenos. Idem cepit per Cantabriam a Nagerense urbe usque ad Tutelam omnia castra. Terram quidem Degensem cum opidis cunctam possideuit. Arbam namque Panpilonensem suo iuri subdidit, necnon cum castris omne territorium Aragonense capit. Dehinc expulsis omnibus biotenatis XX' regni sue anno migrauit a seculo. Sepultus sancti Stefani portico regnat cum Xpo in polo (Obiit Sancio Garseanis era DCCCCLXIIII (A marg.).
Beyond an exact translation, we face here, in order to flesh out the western borders of Sancho Garcia 's kingdom (mark the cepit,conquered) one of the most vexing problems of spanish early middle ages: the exact location (even the meaning) of Cantabria back in the X century. For a starter have a look on the spanish wikipedia [5]. I suppose this is probably why it is little emphasis on it Wllacer 15:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
También tomó bajo su tutela todos los castillos sitos entre Cantabria y la ciudad de Nájera. Ciertamente poseyó la tierra de Deyo, con todas sus fortalezas. Además puso bajo su autoridad la "Arba" pamplonesa. También tomó toda la tierra aragonesa con sus castillos.
I duplicate it here, just for clarity. I add a new translation Once again the original text. [12]
. In era DCCCCXLIIII surrexit in Panpilona rex nomine Sancio Garseanis. Fidei Xpi inseparabiliterque uenerantissimus fuit, pins in omnibus fidefibus misericorsque oppressis catholicis. Quid multa? In omnibus operibus obtimus perstitit. Belligerator aduersus gentes Ysmaelitarum multipficiter strages gessit super Sarrazenos. Idem cepit per Cantabriam a Nagerense urbe usque ad Tutelam omnia castra. Terram quidem Degensem cum opidis cunctam possideuit. Arbam namque Panpilonensem suo iuri subdidit, necnon cum castris omne territorium Aragonense capit. Dehinc expulsis omnibus biotenatis XX' regni sue anno migrauit a seculo. Sepultus sancti Stefani portico regnat cum Xpo in polo (Obiit Sancio Garseanis era DCCCCLXIIII (A marg.).
Translation according to J.M. Lacarra - Leading Figure in Navarrese History - (cited in [13])
En la era 943 surgió en Pamplona un rey de nombre Sancho Garcés. Muy unido a la fe de Cristo fue hombre devoto, piadoso entre todos los fieles y misericordioso entre los católicos. ¿Que más? En todas las circunstancias consiguió ser el mejor. Luchando contra los islamitas, causó muchos estragos entre los sarracenos. También tomó bajo su tutela todos los castillos sitos entre Cantabria y la ciudad de Nájera. Ciertamente poseyó la tierra de Deyo, con todas sus fortalezas. Además puso bajo su autoridad la "Arba" pamplonesa. También tomó toda la tierra aragonesa con sus castillos. Finalmente expulsados todos los malvados, en el año XX de su reinado abandonó el mundo. En la era 963 fue sepultado en el pórtico de San Esteban. Reina con Cristo en el cielo.
Translation according to José Luis Moralejo, ( Crónicas Asturianas, Universidad de Oviedo, 1985, pág. 263). This is the modern standard scholar edition of the Chroniques. As cited at [14]
.En la era 944 [905] surgió en Pamplona un rey de nombre Sancho Garcés. Fue hombre de inquebrantable veneración a la fe de Cristo, piadoso con todos los fieles y misericorde con los católicos oprimidos. ¿A qué decir mucho ? En todas sus acciones se mostró magnífico guerrero contra las gentes de los ismaelitas; causó múltiples desastres a los sarracenos. Este mismo conquistó, en Cantabria, desde la ciudad de Nájera hasta Tudela, todas las plazas fuertes. Desde luego la tierra de Degio [Monjardín, en las cercanías de Estella], con sus villas la poseyó entera. La tierra de Pamplona la sometió a su ley, y conquistó asimismo todo el territorio de Aragón con sus fortalezas. Luego tras eliminar a todos los infieles, el vigésimo año de su reinado partió de este mundo. Sepultado en el pórtico de San Esteban [Monjardín], reina con Cristo en el cielo (Murió el rey Sancho Garcés en la era 964)
I was about to scratch the whole "Navarre was a seafaring ..." paragraph, but I'll give an oportunity to explain how a landlocked country since 1200, with the final cession to Castille of Guipuzcoa (minus intermitent ownership of Fuenterrabia/Hondabarria) can be a a seafaring trading nation in its later existence. Wllacer 10:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you have enough? You may also want to check the article on Labourd, where I have dwelt in Basque mariner activities from the perspective of this region. -- Sugaar 11:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Beyond a somewhat contorted redaction. The last paragraph which currently runs as
By 1200 the conquest of Western Navarre was complete. Castile granted to the fragents of this territory (exceptions: Treviño, Oñati, directly ruled from Castile) the right of self-rule, based in their traditional customs (Navarrese right), that came to be known as fueros. Alava was made county, Biscay lordship and Guipuscoa just province.
is incorrect. Alava had been a county before, but is never again (IIRC) mentioned as such after 1200. Biscay is well documented as a Lordship during the XI and XII centuries. Usually on a castillian, sometimes on navarrese contexts (but always a Lopez de Haro). As provinces (a stable administrative unit) neither Alava nor Guipuzcoa appear before the XIV/XV century. In the interim a complex map of petty lordships, pools of dominical rights (f.i. the Cofradia de Arriaga) and direct royal lands (tierras de realengo, more than the two cited) emerged.
The right of self-rule, and the origin of the fueros based on this event are highly disputable Once again a reference to Llorente is highly advisable, if only because it's available on the net. And a side note, unlike his work on the Inquisición, the only argument against his work on the origins of the basque provinces it that he could have destroyed some documents against his thesis without further proof Wllacer 10:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems Sugaar and me won't agree. I started this whole "war" as I suspected he was using a source for the article which was somehow peculiar but he wasn't aware. So I pointed to certain facts for which i can provide primary evidence (i.e. contemporaneous documents), or am aware of; which ran against what he had written or demanded for a reference of their statements. I feel they are left unanswered.
Error also has contributed, as usual outstandingly, on a different question.
The threads leave me more even more suspicious of the scholar validity of Sugaar sources, but perhaps he is right, and i ought to read them. I did my research and have found that the historian of Navarra still considered the most authoritative source is Jose María Lacarra, as is Roger Collins work on the Basques in general. And they are already on my (desperate long) reading list. Not to not respond to the "national question". It's simply i'm too hobsbawmite (radical anti-(any)nationalist) in this regard that i confess such a discussion fruitless. Wllacer 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You've been told -and buyed- the carlist wars were a national liberation struggle but in name? or read the annexation of Navarre in ethnic terms ? Frankly, -we are going too much off topic, so take it as a rethorical question- do you really believe it can be applied to the history of basque people? Wllacer 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)real ethnic struggle of centuries
By curious coincidence i've seen a minor edit by Sugaar yesterday, which eliminated a comment about Vascones not been equal to Basque, and got some info about a serie of articles about DNA analysis from the graves at the site of Aldaieta (Alava), dated 6th-7th century, i.e. just in the middle of the time where the term "Vascones" was mostly used. [1] and [2] have found a severe discrepance of several genetic markers with living (and prehistoric) basque population. Izaguirre and de la Rúa, two of the authors, are among the most cited geneticits. Just a quote from the abstract of the last article
Both this latter discovery and the high frequency of haplogroup J at the Aldaieta cemetery raise questions about the generally accepted belief that, since ancient times, the influence of other human groups has been very scarce in the Basque Country.
Genetic history is still growing, and the anomalies can be explained via various mechanisms, but this news should put a note of caution even on the statements more obvious, apparently Wllacer 15:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems the references didn't work on the talk page. So here are the full references
Wllacer 15:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
References
Regarding this discussion. I've found, by chance, this article by Professor Jose Luis Orella (From Deusto University at San Sebastian). On a diferent problem he summarizes all the different approaches of academic scholarship to the western limits of Navarra prior to the XI century (using the "Rotense" text as a bone of contention. I'll make a long quote of it, but I think it's worth. I'll excise some text, but it is present as comment.
a) Escuela castellana: Esta escuela en la que habrá que incluir a varios autores como Pérez de Urbel, Sánchez Albornoz, Balparda y entre los actuales a Martínez Díez afirma, a grandes rasgos, que Alfonso I se encuentra actuando en tierras alavesas.(...) . Estos lugares eran tierras políticamente no extrañas al reino. Más aún para Balparda, por este texto se demuestra que Pamplona, Estella y la Berrueza habrían entrado en la órbita de Alfonso I. A esta interpretación se opone Martínez Díez afirmando que las primeras están dentro del reino, las segundas fuera de la órbita política de Alfonso I (22).
b) Escuela Navarra: Está representada principalmente por J. M. Lacarra. ... El mismo autor años más tarde se refería a este siglo y tratando de interpretar este texto afirma: "Tampoco está bien averiguado si entre la zona alavesa (que formaba parte sin duda alguna de la monarquía asturiana) y la de Pamplona, hubo en el siglo IX otro territorio de autonomía política más o menos acentuada que habría que localizar en las montañas de la zona de Estella... Alfonso III ya nos dice que estas tierras (Pampilona, Degius atque Berroza) no fueron reconquistadas por Alfonso I (739-757) ni hubo necesidad de repoblarlas porque siempre fueron poseídas por sus habitantes, lo mismo que Galicia y Vascongadas"(...) ¿Quiere dejar entender el profesor Lacarra la posibilidad de núcleos políticos o tierras con mayor o menor independencia demográfica y política en Galicia, Vizcaya, Ayala, Orduña, Deyo y la Berrueza?
c) Escuela Vasca: Elijamos a dos autores que nos representen esta tendencia historiográfica en la interpretación del texto de la crónica de Alfonso III: a J. E. Uriarte ya A. de Mañaricua. El primero al estudiar la historia de Orduña afirma: "tampoco sacamos nada en limpio hasta el siglo XIII, que nos sirva para determinar su manera de ser y vida propia ni sus relaciones con los monarcas sucesivamente de Asturias, Oviedo y león, ni con los condes y reyes de Castilla" (25).
Más explícito el segundo aunque refiriéndose a los orígenes de Vizcaya afirma: "en aquellos siglos tan oscuros para nosotros existían en el Norte de España dos puntos de polarización política; uno el reino de Asturias, otro el reino de Navarra.(...) Nada podemos afirmar con seguridad. Quizá se halló en los extremos orientales de la órbita asturiana" (26).
Conclusión: De esta disparidad historiográfica sólo podemos concluir la relatividad de las afirmaciones sobre la autonomía de tierras como Alava, Vizcaya, Ayala, Orduña. El admitir mayor influencia política de Asturias sobre Alava no llega a afirmarla en las demás regiones. y por otro lado la historia independiente de estos señoríos hasta la baja Edad Media aboga por la afirmación retroactiva de su autonomía en los primeros siglos de la reconquista.
Y es significativo al efecto que los textos tanto leoneses como navarros de los siglos IX y X no aludan nunca ni a Vizcaya ni a Orduña. Aun entre la documentación monástica las citas abundantes sobre Alava y aun Ayala, son escasas sobre Vizcaya y Orduña, por ejemplo, en la documentación de San Félix de Oca, de San Millán o de Santa María de Valpuesta. Unicamente en esta última colección y fechada en abril del 956 aparece el nombré de un tal Lain de Orduña que actúa en tierras alavesas
.
But, a few paragraphs later comments that
Por otro lado y de forma no menos tajante y sorpresiva L. Serrano afirma: "consta documental mente la soberanía del monarca navarro en Orduña y Durango y buena parte de Alava durante el siglo X; consta por otra parte que Castilla no dominó en la Vizcaya de aquel tiempo, siendo lógico por lo tanto que nuestra región quedase subordinada a Vasconia; en el siglo XI prueban este extremo testimonios documentales" (29).
I think this puts more or less the "state of the question", which is rather complex and of varied arguments. I've omitted Orella's own opinion which tends toward autonomous entities Wllacer 18:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In the line of our previous discussion and, as nobody said anything, I've added the chronicle in Latin plus an English translation (an hybrid of both posted by Wllacer above).
I have also created and added a map that fits that chronicle. Note: the chronicle mentions that Pamplona conquered up to Tudela, yet we know that the Banu Qasi were there for the 9th-11th century period, all the time as allied of Pamplona. Hence, in the map, I've left them in the three towns that are typically mentioned as theirs: Tudela, Olite and Arnedo. -- Sugaar 03:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What was the official language of Navarre's administration until before Henri IV became King of France and Navarre?
Did Basqu serve any functions of the State? Ahassan05 ( talk) 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)ahassan05
The article has makes many assumptions not proved and is very inaccurate. First, the kingdom of Navarra was aragonese, Ferdinand was king of Aragon (something that seems not to be important to the authors) and regent of Castile. It was later (in 1515) when Navarre became Castilian. ([ [16]], in Spanish)
Also, there are many sentences that show a strong anti-castilian sentiment like: the Castilian occupation forces ..., and then it talks about a repression with killings (or not: a severe repression that forced many Navarrese into exile or even death) without citing sources for such a strong accusation, and manipulating the fact that jews and moors were prosecuted to try to prove their point, well: they were in ALL of Spain !!!, not just the kingdom of Navarre. Also: many? well: how many?, even death? again, how many? What kind of article is this?
BTW. All of that: completely absent in the article in Spanish.
Somebody should take a good look at the Wikipedia's NPOV, this article is lacking a lot of that.
-- Ajrs ( talk) 17:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
(de-indent) Thanks for your response. I've changed the article like so:
I've removed the bit about the severe repression as uncited and clarified what I think the author was getting at with respect to the Inquisition. This better?
As for the Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre article... it's the equivalent of a small subset of the es:Conquista de Navarra article (only covering the last wars from 1512-1523). Arguably the article should be moved to a general "Conquest of Navarre" article and cover the history too, but eh. There's nothing wrong with having more specific articles. The es wiki has two articles, too - es:Reino de Navarra and the conquest article, so I don't think having multiple articles is bad here. As for the name... I don't see the problem. Not all of Navarre was conquered (the Bearnese stayed independent as a client state of France) hence the modifier "Iberian Navarre" and the Spanish kingdoms did it. Arguably "Castilian and Aragonese conquest" would be more specific, but it's good to keep titles succinct, and since Ferdinand ruled both kingdoms it is hardly false to just say "Spanish." Also still don't see why you think that it's just a repetition. Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre#1521 French invasion is seven paragraphs, while the French invasion merits just one paragraph in this article. Which is proper, as there's no need to go into great detail here aside from saying that it failed.
If I get time, I'll try and translate some of the Spanish Wikipedia articles and bring them over here. They do seem to have some interesting details not here yet. SnowFire ( talk) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
What role if any did the Basque language play? Did its rulers like Henri IV speak Basque or only Occitan and Navarese Romance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahassan05 ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The Baztan (municipality) is a mess - someone has added a lot of historical data, bordering on biographical material - badly ref'd throughout. Most of it has little to do with Baztan itself but before I go and prune it rigorously, I was wondering if someone would have a look who's good on the history side of things to see if there's anything that can be salvaged for this page? Akerbeltz ( talk) 23:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we say that? Böri ( talk) 09:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
According these sources Inigo was a Basque;
According to this source Basque was the "lingua navarorrum", but not used in a written or official capacity;
None of these references is easily verifiable and, moreover, none of these are based in parchments or medieval documents.
The Gran Enciclopedia de Navarra (academic source of knowledgement of Navarre) doesn´t state the filiation of Íñigo Arista. http://www.enciclopedianavarra.com/navarra/inigo-arista/9551/1/</ref> 188.78.134.205 ( talk) 20:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
By labelling the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra as "a resource used by the outgoing corrupt regional government of Navarre" you clear perfectly that your attemps of imposing biased information in Wikipedia is aimed to a anti-Navarrese Basque ultranationalism strategy. The Gran Enciclopedia Navarra is an university project develop since 1980's and endorsed by all of Navarrese universities and is the major and biggest source of knowledgement about the history and culture of Navarre.
Adding the label "Basque" to the kingdom of Navarre is an illegitimate way to impose in the Wikipedia slanted and politically biased information, cause the reality is:
The two users that are trying to impose the biased labels say that several references regarding Navarre as a "Basque" kingdom, but those references (none of them fully on line accessible -unlike the Gran Enciclopedia Navarre whose entirely content is accesible on line-) simply do statements without any argumentative support the "Basque" condition of Navarre (such as the royal entitlements, the content of the oaths to throne...). In fact, and using the same uncritically strategy, I also can give university references that (also without argumentative support) considered the Kingdom of Navarre as "Pyrenean" "European" or "Spanish" realm, but not "Basque":
Updated:
Hello all. As the article Kingdom of Pamplona already covers the history of the kingdom before the reign of Sancho VI, perhaps it'd be a good idea to update a bit some sections of this article, as some parts (such as the establishment of the kingdom by Arista) overlap and are present in both articles. Greetings.-- Metroxed ( talk) 12:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Infobox section "Religion" is reserved for state religions only, see England, Norway, etc. In this case religion of the ruler, i.e. Roman Catholicism and Reformed (Calvinism). Why do you mention all of them, including Islam? Ernio48 ( talk) 12:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Can someone actually provide a reference the claim in the infobox that Andalusian Arabic remnants were spoken in parts of the Kingdom of Navarre during the Reconquista ? Navarre did not expand much southward during the reconquest and re-take lands from the Moors to the extent that the neighbouring Crown of Aragon did. The limited lands taken by Navarre from the Moors did not remain under Muslim rule for a long period of time, and the bulk of the native Iberian population there, as in the rest of Al-Andalus, continued to speak a Romance language known as Mozarabic which was the foundation for Navarro-Aragonese, as well as later influencing Castilian and Catalan as well. Arabic was spoken mainly by the elite in the region to the south of Navarre, such as in the Taifa of Zaragoza, and the common population chiefly spoke Mozarabic. Andalusian Arabic was a dialect of colloquial Arabic heavily influenced by local Romance ( Mozarabic) that only really developed in the areas which were under Moorish rule longest and were most heavily Arabized and Islamised, such as the Emirate of Cordoba and the Emirate of Granada. 173.238.79.44 ( talk) 13:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Good evening, first of all, if you are adding something on my talk page, please sign your comments, do it at the bottom of the page. If it is something related to the topic, bring it here and not to my talk page. As for the topic, if you want to add that Navarro-Aragonese was a language spoken on the kingdom, add it in the right place. I have fashioned that language article, and I can assure you that Navarro-Aragonese, albeit attested since 11th century on the fringes of the kingdom, it was not the core language of the kingdom at all, it was mainly a status language from the 13th to the 15th century. On the language used, the Arab expedition of 924 clearly states that in Pamplona, they cannot be understood" because they speak Basque for the most part. The lingua navarrorum is Basque. A number of languages have been used, like in so many kingdoms, also Occitan and Erromintxela. That does not make them the language of its natural community (or nation, in it classical meaning) of Navarre.
The rulers of kings of Navarre, believe me, during that period, what was a king and what a ruler or prince, did not make a big difference. The rulers of Navarre are called prince/rulers/kings of the Basques (vascones, bashkunist, etc.). Put your claim in the right place and that should do. You do not need to send Collins nothing, just check the page, do not add noise. By the way, the reference you eventually added inline and I removed for misrepresenting sources by WP:SYNTH does not specify the page. Iñaki LL ( talk) 23:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Navarre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see there's a lot to edit here:
There's also lack of information of the period of Navarre under Spanish sovereignity, which is relevant because it was still a kingdom, not just formally as other regions of Castile but in laws and borders, keeping a semi-independence.
The article needs to be reorganized, dividing it maybe in several periodical sections in order to allow for more clarity.
I suggest the following plan:
At the bottom a list of kings and queens should be added as well.
If nobody disagrees, I will eventually procceed to do it in the following days/weeks.
-- Sugaar 22:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Almost as big as my additions to the original article, made last weekend. 217.140.193.123 01:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I want to point one thing that i think should be corrected, the image of the "arrano beltza" should be the black eagle over a red bottom, not yellow, the traditional coat of arms´ colour was always red. Layo 11:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Wetman misunderstood my citationneeded tag. I am not questioning the meaning of nava or hiri or herri. I doubt their conflation in the etymology of Navarra, Nafarroa, napar. The first lines in this very page offer another etymology. If you think that it comes from nava+hiri, you should attribute it to some authority. -- Error 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
That is impossible, Navarra was "conquered" by Castille in 1512 and the anexation of the iberian side of the kingdom signed in the "Cortes de Burgos" of July-1515. Altought Ferdinand the Catholic was regent in Castille the conquest isn't aragonese, but castillian.
-Fco
Documentation used: Historia de Navarra, el estado Vasco. Mikel Sorauren, Pamiela Ed., 1999. ISBN 84-7681-299-X. Will add to references. -- Sugaar 23:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
More changes (in the same lines):
Since experts are working on this, I am reluctant to insert my own tiny changes. But the next time someone is working on the paragraph where Roncevalles is mentioned twice along with the year (twice), you might merge those two sentences. One contains a correct pointer to Roncevalles/Roncevaux, the other (last) pointer isn't correctly cross-refenced and goes to a "lacks article."
As I saw that phrase I feared that this article had been vandalised at small scale... When I realized that it was actually being subject to very illustrative, coherent discussion I was pretty puzzled. It strikes me that with people who are so well-documented, a line could be added in such a prominent place that reeks so much of Basque nationalistic pollution; at least, from my point of view.
Apart from the "Early History" epigraph, the rest of the article, that is, when we actually talk about a Kingdom, seems to concede little or none importance to the Basque component. As you clearly state in the discussion, the language of the Kingdom was either Latin or Occitan, which means that, no matter how strong the resistance of the Vascones had been and how strong their numbers within the kingdom, they had assimilated the culture, if not of the Romans indeed of the Franks.
In fact, it is gathered from the statements about revolt against the Franks that Iñigo Arista simply rose to the position a previous envoyee of the Franks had held. So, he just became the king of a territory where most people of Vascone ancestry lived, probably together with many others from beyond the Pyrenees. Unfortunately this would also prove true of Castile, since at the time of its independence from León, most people in that mark came from Vascony, maybe Fernán González too. Would we say that Castile was the first independent Basque county in the world?
Now, do you reckon it is the most important thing to say in the summarising lines of the article that Navarre was "the first independent Basque kingdom for centuries"? How long did the Basqueness lasted if it was ever a founding feature? Is it in need for a historical background for more current affairs? It sounds as though there had to be a first Basque independent Whatever and we know not where to look for it.
However, the most astonishing of all is the remark "in the world"... Are there kingdoms in the Moon or is it suggesting that later there were other Basque Kingdoms in other places far away from the Basque fatherland? Whoever wrote it must clarify that; because Núñez de Balboa might have founded a Basque kingdom in Central America and I never heard of it... For the moment, I will erase that part.
I look forward to hearing your opinions on the rest of the phrase.
MiG-25 15:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, Occitan south of the Pyrenees was a thing of local minorities, Catalan poets, and Val d'Aran people. The Navarrese Romance was similar to Aragonese language. There are authors who hold the language of the Glosas Emilianenses as Navarrese Romance rather than Castilian. -- Error 20:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
A bit of background about it. The project started as a common endavour of PNV (majoritary in Biscay and Guipuzcoa) and the Carlists (the same in Alava and Navarra). Its stated aim was to salvage both the foral privileges in the new constitutional context and to create the conditions to counteract the anticlerical policies of the II republic (it has to be rememebered that both were at that time ultra-catholic, if not outright integrists). At one point, both parties quarrelled (rather unsurprisingly) and the Carlist withdrew its support to the project at the eleventh hour. Just party politics started the project, just party politics drowned it. Wllacer 12:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The representatives were elected by the people (in wich referendum) to do that? Was the "autonomy" in his election´s program? Is the vote of a "delegate" from a city like Tudela (11248 people) equal to the vote of a delegate of a village like Alsasua (3330 people). It is nonsense to take in consideration this, if not "illegal", at least "allegal", project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.225.36.178 ( talk) 23:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Sugaar You seem to have put a lot of work and interest in this and related articles. But i have serious doubts about the scholary outcome. I'm afraid you've followed a source which has mislead you.
I read about the so-called by you "905 leonese Chronicle" and it awoke my interest. I did a cursory search (google, wikipedia, Roger Collins' "Early Medieval Spain", ...) and i'm unable to locate it. Which, taking into account that Collins is one of the foremost scholars in Basque studies, makes me wonder.
From the context and date it could only be the Cronica de Alfonso III, whose text can be found at [2] (look for "Rotensis" and "Ad Sebastianum"). Using the later version -its latin is a little less barbarian- the "Uascones" are cited in §16 as "rebelantur" from Fruela I of Asturies, and §14 cites Pamplona in a context related to Alfonso I of Asturias. I'll reproduce the paragraph as it's very interesting.
14. Eo tempore populantur Primorias, Libana, Transmera, Supporter, Carranza, Bardulies que nunc appellatur Castella et pars maritima Gallecie; Alaba namque, Bizkai, Alaone et Urdunia a suis incolis reperiuntur semper esse possesse, sicut Pampilona [Degius est] atque Berroza ...
My Latin is rusty but there is no way to contort the meaning to imply that Alaba ... where dependent of Pamplona (which belongs to Degius ¿?). The paragraph AFAIK is the first written statement about the presumed authoctony of the basques. The Rotensis has a couple of textual variations in both paragraphs, which don't alter the meaning and a new cite of a rebellion (§25) during Ramiro I of Asturias' reign.
There are many other statements i think you were mistaken, but they need their time -- Wllacer 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- In that times Primorias ...Gallecie were (re)populated; for the inhabitans (incolis) who live (reperiuntur) in Alaba ... Urdunia have always held it , as it's the case (atque) with Pampilona and Berzosa.
All that is being disputed and reviewed (Spanish focused historiography has dominated for centuries and only now some Basque/Navarrese autoctonous research, as the book I quoted, is questioning large parts of it).
The text you mention is definitively not the one that Sorauren does, as Alfonso III is of a later date. Tomás Urzainqui and J.M. de Olaizola (La Navarra Marítima. Pamiela, 1998 -
ISBN
84-7681-293-0), say about that text:
They add
After making a strong criticism of some pro-Asturian authors, particularly García de Cortazar. They quote other authors, more in the pro-Pamplonese line: Gregorio Montreal (1986) says:
The identity of right between Western Basque and Navarrese is also aduced to claim a total historical identity of these territories. The authors also cirticise Sabino Arana on his claims that Biscay and Guipuscoa (and Alava) were independent, they say:
Your novecentist source, Llorente, starts claiming that Autrigones, Varduli and Caristii remained loyal to Rome. This is not clear at all. In fact, modern archaeology rather supports that the whole area was unruly in the 5th century (reaction to feudalization) and that whole "inner limes" was created around the Basque lands in that period. This explains well why we find the independent Vasconia in the High Middle Ages and not a Visigothic province. I really have no time nor patience to read all the nonsenses that have been said in the past centuries, I leave that task for the professional historians, who live on it. Regarding "nation-state", it's clear that ethnicity was at times a constituent factor of kingdoms and duchies in the Middle Ages and that often said countries were named for the people who lived there: Saxony, Swabia, Wales, Scotland, Vasconia/Gascony, Polania/Poland are clear cases. You can't just apply the same non-ethnic criteria that amy be valid for some areas for all cases without further consideration. In the case of Vasconia and later Pamplona/Navarre, it seems very clear that the ethnic factor was most important, even if the awareness of it is not always explicit. The Navarrese Right (aka Pyrenean Right) is not Roman-based nor of Germanic origin: it has its own local roots and it is consistent along all the territory that was once Basque and was able to keep their laws (fueros). -- Sugaar 10:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the relevant paragraph from the Albendensechronicle. Source is once again the site from the CSIC [4]
. In era DCCCCXLIIII surrexit in Panpilona rex nomine Sancio Garseanis. Fidei Xpi inseparabiliterque uenerantissimus fuit, pins in omnibus fidefibus misericorsque oppressis catholicis. Quid multa? In omnibus operibus obtimus perstitit. Belligerator aduersus gentes Ysmaelitarum multipficiter strages gessit super Sarrazenos. Idem cepit per Cantabriam a Nagerense urbe usque ad Tutelam omnia castra. Terram quidem Degensem cum opidis cunctam possideuit. Arbam namque Panpilonensem suo iuri subdidit, necnon cum castris omne territorium Aragonense capit. Dehinc expulsis omnibus biotenatis XX' regni sue anno migrauit a seculo. Sepultus sancti Stefani portico regnat cum Xpo in polo (Obiit Sancio Garseanis era DCCCCLXIIII (A marg.).
Beyond an exact translation, we face here, in order to flesh out the western borders of Sancho Garcia 's kingdom (mark the cepit,conquered) one of the most vexing problems of spanish early middle ages: the exact location (even the meaning) of Cantabria back in the X century. For a starter have a look on the spanish wikipedia [5]. I suppose this is probably why it is little emphasis on it Wllacer 15:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
También tomó bajo su tutela todos los castillos sitos entre Cantabria y la ciudad de Nájera. Ciertamente poseyó la tierra de Deyo, con todas sus fortalezas. Además puso bajo su autoridad la "Arba" pamplonesa. También tomó toda la tierra aragonesa con sus castillos.
I duplicate it here, just for clarity. I add a new translation Once again the original text. [12]
. In era DCCCCXLIIII surrexit in Panpilona rex nomine Sancio Garseanis. Fidei Xpi inseparabiliterque uenerantissimus fuit, pins in omnibus fidefibus misericorsque oppressis catholicis. Quid multa? In omnibus operibus obtimus perstitit. Belligerator aduersus gentes Ysmaelitarum multipficiter strages gessit super Sarrazenos. Idem cepit per Cantabriam a Nagerense urbe usque ad Tutelam omnia castra. Terram quidem Degensem cum opidis cunctam possideuit. Arbam namque Panpilonensem suo iuri subdidit, necnon cum castris omne territorium Aragonense capit. Dehinc expulsis omnibus biotenatis XX' regni sue anno migrauit a seculo. Sepultus sancti Stefani portico regnat cum Xpo in polo (Obiit Sancio Garseanis era DCCCCLXIIII (A marg.).
Translation according to J.M. Lacarra - Leading Figure in Navarrese History - (cited in [13])
En la era 943 surgió en Pamplona un rey de nombre Sancho Garcés. Muy unido a la fe de Cristo fue hombre devoto, piadoso entre todos los fieles y misericordioso entre los católicos. ¿Que más? En todas las circunstancias consiguió ser el mejor. Luchando contra los islamitas, causó muchos estragos entre los sarracenos. También tomó bajo su tutela todos los castillos sitos entre Cantabria y la ciudad de Nájera. Ciertamente poseyó la tierra de Deyo, con todas sus fortalezas. Además puso bajo su autoridad la "Arba" pamplonesa. También tomó toda la tierra aragonesa con sus castillos. Finalmente expulsados todos los malvados, en el año XX de su reinado abandonó el mundo. En la era 963 fue sepultado en el pórtico de San Esteban. Reina con Cristo en el cielo.
Translation according to José Luis Moralejo, ( Crónicas Asturianas, Universidad de Oviedo, 1985, pág. 263). This is the modern standard scholar edition of the Chroniques. As cited at [14]
.En la era 944 [905] surgió en Pamplona un rey de nombre Sancho Garcés. Fue hombre de inquebrantable veneración a la fe de Cristo, piadoso con todos los fieles y misericorde con los católicos oprimidos. ¿A qué decir mucho ? En todas sus acciones se mostró magnífico guerrero contra las gentes de los ismaelitas; causó múltiples desastres a los sarracenos. Este mismo conquistó, en Cantabria, desde la ciudad de Nájera hasta Tudela, todas las plazas fuertes. Desde luego la tierra de Degio [Monjardín, en las cercanías de Estella], con sus villas la poseyó entera. La tierra de Pamplona la sometió a su ley, y conquistó asimismo todo el territorio de Aragón con sus fortalezas. Luego tras eliminar a todos los infieles, el vigésimo año de su reinado partió de este mundo. Sepultado en el pórtico de San Esteban [Monjardín], reina con Cristo en el cielo (Murió el rey Sancho Garcés en la era 964)
I was about to scratch the whole "Navarre was a seafaring ..." paragraph, but I'll give an oportunity to explain how a landlocked country since 1200, with the final cession to Castille of Guipuzcoa (minus intermitent ownership of Fuenterrabia/Hondabarria) can be a a seafaring trading nation in its later existence. Wllacer 10:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you have enough? You may also want to check the article on Labourd, where I have dwelt in Basque mariner activities from the perspective of this region. -- Sugaar 11:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Beyond a somewhat contorted redaction. The last paragraph which currently runs as
By 1200 the conquest of Western Navarre was complete. Castile granted to the fragents of this territory (exceptions: Treviño, Oñati, directly ruled from Castile) the right of self-rule, based in their traditional customs (Navarrese right), that came to be known as fueros. Alava was made county, Biscay lordship and Guipuscoa just province.
is incorrect. Alava had been a county before, but is never again (IIRC) mentioned as such after 1200. Biscay is well documented as a Lordship during the XI and XII centuries. Usually on a castillian, sometimes on navarrese contexts (but always a Lopez de Haro). As provinces (a stable administrative unit) neither Alava nor Guipuzcoa appear before the XIV/XV century. In the interim a complex map of petty lordships, pools of dominical rights (f.i. the Cofradia de Arriaga) and direct royal lands (tierras de realengo, more than the two cited) emerged.
The right of self-rule, and the origin of the fueros based on this event are highly disputable Once again a reference to Llorente is highly advisable, if only because it's available on the net. And a side note, unlike his work on the Inquisición, the only argument against his work on the origins of the basque provinces it that he could have destroyed some documents against his thesis without further proof Wllacer 10:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems Sugaar and me won't agree. I started this whole "war" as I suspected he was using a source for the article which was somehow peculiar but he wasn't aware. So I pointed to certain facts for which i can provide primary evidence (i.e. contemporaneous documents), or am aware of; which ran against what he had written or demanded for a reference of their statements. I feel they are left unanswered.
Error also has contributed, as usual outstandingly, on a different question.
The threads leave me more even more suspicious of the scholar validity of Sugaar sources, but perhaps he is right, and i ought to read them. I did my research and have found that the historian of Navarra still considered the most authoritative source is Jose María Lacarra, as is Roger Collins work on the Basques in general. And they are already on my (desperate long) reading list. Not to not respond to the "national question". It's simply i'm too hobsbawmite (radical anti-(any)nationalist) in this regard that i confess such a discussion fruitless. Wllacer 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You've been told -and buyed- the carlist wars were a national liberation struggle but in name? or read the annexation of Navarre in ethnic terms ? Frankly, -we are going too much off topic, so take it as a rethorical question- do you really believe it can be applied to the history of basque people? Wllacer 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)real ethnic struggle of centuries
By curious coincidence i've seen a minor edit by Sugaar yesterday, which eliminated a comment about Vascones not been equal to Basque, and got some info about a serie of articles about DNA analysis from the graves at the site of Aldaieta (Alava), dated 6th-7th century, i.e. just in the middle of the time where the term "Vascones" was mostly used. [1] and [2] have found a severe discrepance of several genetic markers with living (and prehistoric) basque population. Izaguirre and de la Rúa, two of the authors, are among the most cited geneticits. Just a quote from the abstract of the last article
Both this latter discovery and the high frequency of haplogroup J at the Aldaieta cemetery raise questions about the generally accepted belief that, since ancient times, the influence of other human groups has been very scarce in the Basque Country.
Genetic history is still growing, and the anomalies can be explained via various mechanisms, but this news should put a note of caution even on the statements more obvious, apparently Wllacer 15:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems the references didn't work on the talk page. So here are the full references
Wllacer 15:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
References
Regarding this discussion. I've found, by chance, this article by Professor Jose Luis Orella (From Deusto University at San Sebastian). On a diferent problem he summarizes all the different approaches of academic scholarship to the western limits of Navarra prior to the XI century (using the "Rotense" text as a bone of contention. I'll make a long quote of it, but I think it's worth. I'll excise some text, but it is present as comment.
a) Escuela castellana: Esta escuela en la que habrá que incluir a varios autores como Pérez de Urbel, Sánchez Albornoz, Balparda y entre los actuales a Martínez Díez afirma, a grandes rasgos, que Alfonso I se encuentra actuando en tierras alavesas.(...) . Estos lugares eran tierras políticamente no extrañas al reino. Más aún para Balparda, por este texto se demuestra que Pamplona, Estella y la Berrueza habrían entrado en la órbita de Alfonso I. A esta interpretación se opone Martínez Díez afirmando que las primeras están dentro del reino, las segundas fuera de la órbita política de Alfonso I (22).
b) Escuela Navarra: Está representada principalmente por J. M. Lacarra. ... El mismo autor años más tarde se refería a este siglo y tratando de interpretar este texto afirma: "Tampoco está bien averiguado si entre la zona alavesa (que formaba parte sin duda alguna de la monarquía asturiana) y la de Pamplona, hubo en el siglo IX otro territorio de autonomía política más o menos acentuada que habría que localizar en las montañas de la zona de Estella... Alfonso III ya nos dice que estas tierras (Pampilona, Degius atque Berroza) no fueron reconquistadas por Alfonso I (739-757) ni hubo necesidad de repoblarlas porque siempre fueron poseídas por sus habitantes, lo mismo que Galicia y Vascongadas"(...) ¿Quiere dejar entender el profesor Lacarra la posibilidad de núcleos políticos o tierras con mayor o menor independencia demográfica y política en Galicia, Vizcaya, Ayala, Orduña, Deyo y la Berrueza?
c) Escuela Vasca: Elijamos a dos autores que nos representen esta tendencia historiográfica en la interpretación del texto de la crónica de Alfonso III: a J. E. Uriarte ya A. de Mañaricua. El primero al estudiar la historia de Orduña afirma: "tampoco sacamos nada en limpio hasta el siglo XIII, que nos sirva para determinar su manera de ser y vida propia ni sus relaciones con los monarcas sucesivamente de Asturias, Oviedo y león, ni con los condes y reyes de Castilla" (25).
Más explícito el segundo aunque refiriéndose a los orígenes de Vizcaya afirma: "en aquellos siglos tan oscuros para nosotros existían en el Norte de España dos puntos de polarización política; uno el reino de Asturias, otro el reino de Navarra.(...) Nada podemos afirmar con seguridad. Quizá se halló en los extremos orientales de la órbita asturiana" (26).
Conclusión: De esta disparidad historiográfica sólo podemos concluir la relatividad de las afirmaciones sobre la autonomía de tierras como Alava, Vizcaya, Ayala, Orduña. El admitir mayor influencia política de Asturias sobre Alava no llega a afirmarla en las demás regiones. y por otro lado la historia independiente de estos señoríos hasta la baja Edad Media aboga por la afirmación retroactiva de su autonomía en los primeros siglos de la reconquista.
Y es significativo al efecto que los textos tanto leoneses como navarros de los siglos IX y X no aludan nunca ni a Vizcaya ni a Orduña. Aun entre la documentación monástica las citas abundantes sobre Alava y aun Ayala, son escasas sobre Vizcaya y Orduña, por ejemplo, en la documentación de San Félix de Oca, de San Millán o de Santa María de Valpuesta. Unicamente en esta última colección y fechada en abril del 956 aparece el nombré de un tal Lain de Orduña que actúa en tierras alavesas
.
But, a few paragraphs later comments that
Por otro lado y de forma no menos tajante y sorpresiva L. Serrano afirma: "consta documental mente la soberanía del monarca navarro en Orduña y Durango y buena parte de Alava durante el siglo X; consta por otra parte que Castilla no dominó en la Vizcaya de aquel tiempo, siendo lógico por lo tanto que nuestra región quedase subordinada a Vasconia; en el siglo XI prueban este extremo testimonios documentales" (29).
I think this puts more or less the "state of the question", which is rather complex and of varied arguments. I've omitted Orella's own opinion which tends toward autonomous entities Wllacer 18:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In the line of our previous discussion and, as nobody said anything, I've added the chronicle in Latin plus an English translation (an hybrid of both posted by Wllacer above).
I have also created and added a map that fits that chronicle. Note: the chronicle mentions that Pamplona conquered up to Tudela, yet we know that the Banu Qasi were there for the 9th-11th century period, all the time as allied of Pamplona. Hence, in the map, I've left them in the three towns that are typically mentioned as theirs: Tudela, Olite and Arnedo. -- Sugaar 03:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What was the official language of Navarre's administration until before Henri IV became King of France and Navarre?
Did Basqu serve any functions of the State? Ahassan05 ( talk) 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)ahassan05
The article has makes many assumptions not proved and is very inaccurate. First, the kingdom of Navarra was aragonese, Ferdinand was king of Aragon (something that seems not to be important to the authors) and regent of Castile. It was later (in 1515) when Navarre became Castilian. ([ [16]], in Spanish)
Also, there are many sentences that show a strong anti-castilian sentiment like: the Castilian occupation forces ..., and then it talks about a repression with killings (or not: a severe repression that forced many Navarrese into exile or even death) without citing sources for such a strong accusation, and manipulating the fact that jews and moors were prosecuted to try to prove their point, well: they were in ALL of Spain !!!, not just the kingdom of Navarre. Also: many? well: how many?, even death? again, how many? What kind of article is this?
BTW. All of that: completely absent in the article in Spanish.
Somebody should take a good look at the Wikipedia's NPOV, this article is lacking a lot of that.
-- Ajrs ( talk) 17:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
(de-indent) Thanks for your response. I've changed the article like so:
I've removed the bit about the severe repression as uncited and clarified what I think the author was getting at with respect to the Inquisition. This better?
As for the Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre article... it's the equivalent of a small subset of the es:Conquista de Navarra article (only covering the last wars from 1512-1523). Arguably the article should be moved to a general "Conquest of Navarre" article and cover the history too, but eh. There's nothing wrong with having more specific articles. The es wiki has two articles, too - es:Reino de Navarra and the conquest article, so I don't think having multiple articles is bad here. As for the name... I don't see the problem. Not all of Navarre was conquered (the Bearnese stayed independent as a client state of France) hence the modifier "Iberian Navarre" and the Spanish kingdoms did it. Arguably "Castilian and Aragonese conquest" would be more specific, but it's good to keep titles succinct, and since Ferdinand ruled both kingdoms it is hardly false to just say "Spanish." Also still don't see why you think that it's just a repetition. Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre#1521 French invasion is seven paragraphs, while the French invasion merits just one paragraph in this article. Which is proper, as there's no need to go into great detail here aside from saying that it failed.
If I get time, I'll try and translate some of the Spanish Wikipedia articles and bring them over here. They do seem to have some interesting details not here yet. SnowFire ( talk) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
What role if any did the Basque language play? Did its rulers like Henri IV speak Basque or only Occitan and Navarese Romance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahassan05 ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The Baztan (municipality) is a mess - someone has added a lot of historical data, bordering on biographical material - badly ref'd throughout. Most of it has little to do with Baztan itself but before I go and prune it rigorously, I was wondering if someone would have a look who's good on the history side of things to see if there's anything that can be salvaged for this page? Akerbeltz ( talk) 23:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we say that? Böri ( talk) 09:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
According these sources Inigo was a Basque;
According to this source Basque was the "lingua navarorrum", but not used in a written or official capacity;
None of these references is easily verifiable and, moreover, none of these are based in parchments or medieval documents.
The Gran Enciclopedia de Navarra (academic source of knowledgement of Navarre) doesn´t state the filiation of Íñigo Arista. http://www.enciclopedianavarra.com/navarra/inigo-arista/9551/1/</ref> 188.78.134.205 ( talk) 20:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
By labelling the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra as "a resource used by the outgoing corrupt regional government of Navarre" you clear perfectly that your attemps of imposing biased information in Wikipedia is aimed to a anti-Navarrese Basque ultranationalism strategy. The Gran Enciclopedia Navarra is an university project develop since 1980's and endorsed by all of Navarrese universities and is the major and biggest source of knowledgement about the history and culture of Navarre.
Adding the label "Basque" to the kingdom of Navarre is an illegitimate way to impose in the Wikipedia slanted and politically biased information, cause the reality is:
The two users that are trying to impose the biased labels say that several references regarding Navarre as a "Basque" kingdom, but those references (none of them fully on line accessible -unlike the Gran Enciclopedia Navarre whose entirely content is accesible on line-) simply do statements without any argumentative support the "Basque" condition of Navarre (such as the royal entitlements, the content of the oaths to throne...). In fact, and using the same uncritically strategy, I also can give university references that (also without argumentative support) considered the Kingdom of Navarre as "Pyrenean" "European" or "Spanish" realm, but not "Basque":
Updated:
Hello all. As the article Kingdom of Pamplona already covers the history of the kingdom before the reign of Sancho VI, perhaps it'd be a good idea to update a bit some sections of this article, as some parts (such as the establishment of the kingdom by Arista) overlap and are present in both articles. Greetings.-- Metroxed ( talk) 12:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Infobox section "Religion" is reserved for state religions only, see England, Norway, etc. In this case religion of the ruler, i.e. Roman Catholicism and Reformed (Calvinism). Why do you mention all of them, including Islam? Ernio48 ( talk) 12:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Can someone actually provide a reference the claim in the infobox that Andalusian Arabic remnants were spoken in parts of the Kingdom of Navarre during the Reconquista ? Navarre did not expand much southward during the reconquest and re-take lands from the Moors to the extent that the neighbouring Crown of Aragon did. The limited lands taken by Navarre from the Moors did not remain under Muslim rule for a long period of time, and the bulk of the native Iberian population there, as in the rest of Al-Andalus, continued to speak a Romance language known as Mozarabic which was the foundation for Navarro-Aragonese, as well as later influencing Castilian and Catalan as well. Arabic was spoken mainly by the elite in the region to the south of Navarre, such as in the Taifa of Zaragoza, and the common population chiefly spoke Mozarabic. Andalusian Arabic was a dialect of colloquial Arabic heavily influenced by local Romance ( Mozarabic) that only really developed in the areas which were under Moorish rule longest and were most heavily Arabized and Islamised, such as the Emirate of Cordoba and the Emirate of Granada. 173.238.79.44 ( talk) 13:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Good evening, first of all, if you are adding something on my talk page, please sign your comments, do it at the bottom of the page. If it is something related to the topic, bring it here and not to my talk page. As for the topic, if you want to add that Navarro-Aragonese was a language spoken on the kingdom, add it in the right place. I have fashioned that language article, and I can assure you that Navarro-Aragonese, albeit attested since 11th century on the fringes of the kingdom, it was not the core language of the kingdom at all, it was mainly a status language from the 13th to the 15th century. On the language used, the Arab expedition of 924 clearly states that in Pamplona, they cannot be understood" because they speak Basque for the most part. The lingua navarrorum is Basque. A number of languages have been used, like in so many kingdoms, also Occitan and Erromintxela. That does not make them the language of its natural community (or nation, in it classical meaning) of Navarre.
The rulers of kings of Navarre, believe me, during that period, what was a king and what a ruler or prince, did not make a big difference. The rulers of Navarre are called prince/rulers/kings of the Basques (vascones, bashkunist, etc.). Put your claim in the right place and that should do. You do not need to send Collins nothing, just check the page, do not add noise. By the way, the reference you eventually added inline and I removed for misrepresenting sources by WP:SYNTH does not specify the page. Iñaki LL ( talk) 23:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Navarre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)