Talk:Battle of Guadalete/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
"Guadalete River", "La Janda Lake" or "Barbate River"?
It is uncertain whether the battle took place at the Guadalete river or at the La Janda lake, or even the Barbate River. There is not documentation at all on the event. So, it is usually said: either "Battle of Gaudalete" or "Battle of La Janda", and sometimes, though rarely, the "Battle of the Barbate River".
(Threshold 18:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
hmm... perhaps we should create Battle of La Janda as a seperate page that re-directs to Battle of Guadalete? Hiberniantears 14:48, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Smaller figures
As with the "Battle of Covadonga" almost everything is unsure about this event. However the arguments of the hispanist Roger Collins are truly convincing, and, so, I second his opinion about the figures: None of the contingents of troops at Guadalete could have been too numerous for the reasons provided by him, which, in summary, are: 1) on the Muslim side, a large expedition would have demanded the presence of Musa ibn Nusair (no doubt about this, the governor should lead the conquest expeditions, under penalty of losing the power -Remember the punishment inflicted by Musa to Tarik later, and the subsequent intervention of the Caliph); 2) on the Visigoth side, King Roderic had been well informed about the size of the expedition and did not consider the situation as a real threat, althought he was finally surprised by the invaders' rather new tactics of combat.
(Threshold 18:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
Smaller figures again (let us be serious!)
Please don´t put here what you learnt at the primary school!! We heard many things like this as kids, but not even then we ever heard something so fantastic (40.000 visigoths!!, why not 400.000?), where did you get those figures. I recomend you to spend a few minutes reading Roger Collins (Early Medieval Spain. Unity and Diversity (400-1000). The McMillan Ltd. (London, 1983). There is a Spanish translation If you prefer.
I gather from your fantasy you also believe in the magical Clavijo Battle, don´t you?
Was Roger Collins present when the battle occured in 711 ?
It really is true that Roderic had an army of 40000 soldiers and the super military commander Tarik ibn Zyad had an army of 7000 men. I know this because Tarik ibn Zyad is my Ancestor and the story has been told (in our family) from generation to generation, so it is also part of MY History. I know more about this subject than Roger Collins. Was his Ancestor Tarik ibn Zyad ?
Wow!!!
- Are you lot being stupid or funny? We at Wikipedia don't base figures on people who claim to be the descendents of a long gone commander. Listen, we treat sources from one side as bias. To assume that the alledged descendant (who has no proof in any claims) of one side is reliable is to be extemely unacademic. Tourskin 00:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
references for Yahnson Zsolte ?
Can someone add a reference for the paragraph on Yahnson Zsolte? This seems unusual (fantastic?) and would be strenthened by a reference. By the way, please sign your comments with the four tildes. Thanks Hu Gadarn 14:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Why were the Hungarians fighting on the same side as the Moors? How did the communicate? Tesint 22:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Impossible - Hungarian Magyars did not enter Europe until 9th century and did not advance beyond the Rhine or into the Mediterranean. They were repelled by the Holy Roman Empire and forced to settle in Hungary as their allies. Tourskin 01:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Date of battle
The date July 19 only appears in pages that are obviously copypasta from this article. In other words, this is the only article on the internet that says July 19. I'm going to need to see a book citation in here by next week or I'll remove the date, kay? 70.75.0.221 (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Article needs work
I mention this as it is now on the front page for today and yet it has sections missing and parts of it are not worded very well. I added templates for these to encourage the extra viewers it will receive to do something about it rather than getting upset about why it's on the front page if it's not complete. Mfield (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
TROOP NUMBERS
Please stop this edit war until it is hashed out on this talk page! If you are going to change the troop numbers, we need some more sources. Also, can anyone find a source for the image? It is up for deletion. Thanks... Hiberniantears 16:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Most on the Muslim invasion of the Iberian Peninsula comes from pure conjecture or, simply, from tales: background (Count Julian, a tale), main events (pre-Tarik exploration by Tarif, no historical trace at all) and, mainly, figures, usually inconsistent with demographic reality and political context. For all these stories, there are no verifiable sources at all. Troop numbers must be taken cautiosly and derived from those given by the closest written sources (if any) and strongly adjusted by historical background. Roger Collins followed this approach, so that his figures are pretty aceptable. Tarik expedition could not have been a big one, otherwise, according to Arabian customs, Musa, as the gorvernor, ought to have been the head; another indication in this direction was that the Caliph stood against the Tarik adventure and subsequent movement of Musa on the estrait. Consequently with the size of the invader, the Visigothic reaction would have been reduced, as Roderic was engaged in solving other (even personal) problems and because he was not in control of the whole peninsula. These are the facts. Definitely, both contingents below 2,000. (Threshold 17:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC))
I like what you're saying Threshold. Given that the total number of troops involved has changed continuously since the inception of this article, perhaps we should just leave the number of troops out, or give the high and low estimates, rather than attempting to settle on one particular figure... Thoughts? Hiberniantears 18:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Hiberniantears! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Re-reconquista (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Latin and Arabic Wikipedia
Latin Wikipedia has some details and references missing here.--Wetman (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- The article is equally good, or perhaps I should more fittingly say, equally bad. I can't understand how the references are being used, so we need a translator, or someone from wikiproject:echo. Tourskin (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is some content at ar wiki as well but they got no more than 2 general references for the whole stuff. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Both the Arabic and apparently the Latin Wikipedia state that the Goths numbered 40,000 soldiers. The Arabic Wikipedia states that the initial 7,000 Muslims were reinforced with another 5,000 from Musa bin Nusair to counter the enemy. They then received further reinforcements form Count Julian and an alliance of other nobles who were against Roderick because he took the throne by force. It also states that the Gothic army was separated into five divisions, 2 of which left early in the battle, without mentioning why, demoralizing those who remained to fight. Historian David Levering Lewis suggests in his book God's Crucible that the Goths numbered around 33,000 troops. He also writes that the Muslim tactic of repeatedly attacking and withdrawing was highly successful against the Goths, who maneuvered en masse, leaving them somewhat vulnerable to their enemy. He writes this from Arab and Western sources. Sherif Mohamed Sherif July 25, 2008 Sherif9282 (talk)
I plan to work on this article from the best English sources soon, and the Latin Wiki will provide some good primary source quotations. To Sherif and Tourskin, the primary sources do not indicate reliable troop numbers, so all speculation must be based solely on what is known about armies of the period and about Arab capabilities in North Africa and the Visigothic military in Spain. Grabbing the book at the top of my nearby stack, Collins' Visigothic Spain, and I read that a ~2,000 for the Arabs/Berbers and "probably not much larger" for the Goths. He completely discounts the later Arabic sources, which are the only "primary" sources for numbers. Srnec (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- To Srnec, it would seem unlikely for the number of the Arabs and the Goths to be so low (eg: ~2,000), because Guadalete was the only major battle that took place during the conquest of al-Andalus, and after it, much of Iberia fell without much resistance. Looking back at the Arabic Wikipedia, it actually quotes a number between 30,000 and 40,000 for the Visigoths. The Arabic Wikipedia uses a book by Ibn Kathir called Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah The Beginning and the End. The book God's Crucible lists the book History of the Prophets and Kings Tarikh al-Tabari by Al-Tabari. Both sources are known for their high level of detail and accuracy. Another source used by David Levering Lewis in his book is the Chronicle of Alfonso III, and Olivia Remie Constable's book Medieval Iberia: Readings from Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997. Another source is Ibn Abd-el-Hakem's book (with an online link) The Islamic Conquest of Spain.. These are five sources so far. It's worth taking note that the army led by Tariq must have contained experienced soldiers; Arabs who fought the Byzantines in the Middle East and North Africa, Berbers who initially resisted the Muslim invaders, and this surely gave them an advantage against the Goths. Roderic's army more likely contained a majority of slaves and poorly trained levies of peasants, hastily recruited to help him secure his newly seized throne (see the article on King Roderick). Sherif Mohamed Sherif, July 26, 2008 Sherif9282 (talk)
- I think you're missing the point here Sherif. Primary sources like Ibn Abd-el-Hakem and Alfonso III have their own reasons to make the battle far larger than it was. Alfonso III, a Christian, would have wanted to make the battle seem like a disaster in order to make his ancestor's achievments of defeating the Moors seem greater. And the Moors would have wanted to make their victory even greater and heroic; unfortunately I have seen so many exaggerated battles by conquering Arab armies in Byzantine-Arab Wars, it makes we wonder how so many men can be raised - Spain in the 8th century was a reaL DUMP! As was most of Europe at the time. There is very little infrastructure. If Roderick is as unpopular as many say he is, then his ary would have been small since no would have wanted to fight for him and no one could be paid to fight for him because the Roman infrastructure that allowed efficient taxation collapsed after the 5th century, and how can an unpopular leader like Roderic raise such taxes, or the manpower? In all likelihood, a raiding Arab army exploited the situation. Resistance collapsing in Spain is not due to military power not existing for the Visigoths; on the contrary if so many Visigoths were defeated to explain the lack of resistance, then don't you think that 7,000 Arabs would have difficulty trying to populate such a large country? Thanks for the primary sources given, we shall consider these, but we shall also consider the above assumptions I have given, and that 8th century Dark Age Europe was not a well-populated or well-run entity. Tourskin (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- What you're saying Tourskin makes good sense and I agree to some degree. However you keep raising questions concerning how 7,000 Arabs and Berbers could populate such a country and manage their logistics, as if they were never reinforced by another 5,000 men before the battle, and 18,000 more under Musa bin Nusair nearly a year later, with more and more arriving as the Muslims continued their success. Otherwise how could you explain the 80,000 Muslims who participated at the Battle of Tours even after the losses at the Battle of Toulouse. It's important you keep this in mind. Another thing you should consider is that a small part of the Gothic nobility might have helped Roderick assemble his army with the intention of letting him die in battle, then seize victory for their own. It might have been a perfect way to get rid of him. But then things got out of hand, and the battle was lost. The chronicle of 754 states this, which is until now considered to be the best source available. It also tells us that Roderick initiated his coup with the support of the "senate", this senate probably resembling the leading aristocrats of the court and perhaps some bishops as well. The fact that he ruled his southern kingdom from 710 until his death in 711 or 712 without any recorded inner resistance or rebellion indicates clearly that he was not so unpopular with his own subjects. It seems unlikely to me in the end that King Roderick and the majority of his nobility would ride out at the head of an army any smaller than 5,000, unless this was his sole available force. I agree with you that the entirety of Europe at the time was a hellhole, but that didn't stop Charles Martel from battling the Muslims with an army of 20,000-30,000 men, even though he only ruled a portion of Gaul. And this army wasn't a collection of levied peasants and slaves, it was a fully trained and equipped army battle-hardened from his many campaigns. Yet he managed to raise the finances needed for such an army. Sherif Mohamed Sherif Sherif9282 (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be best that until we consider all primary resources, we should put aside our assumptions and opinions. Sherif Mohamed Sherif Sherif9282 (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
John of Biclar
In my rewrite of this article I have tried to preserve anything from the old article that was sourced (or correct). However, there is one thing that I cannot understand:
- Two Christian sources that provide the scanty details of the Moorish invasion are the anonymous continuator of the chronicle of Johannes Biclarensis, who brought forward to the year 721 Johannes' account that ended in 589, and the Chronicle of 754, traditionally attributed to a phantom "Isidorus Pacensis", an "Isidore of Beja", whose transcribed the continuator of Johannes for the early years of the eighth century and only becomes a genuinely independent eyewitness account too late for this battle.
Despite my research, I cannot find out what is meant here. Is the Chronicle of 741, which says nothing about Spain, the continuation of Biclar being referred to? I am not aware that the Chronicle of 754 is a transcription of an earlier work. I can also find nothing relating to any chronicles or manuscripts that occurred in the year 721. Granted, I haven't read all the pertinent sources, nor do I even have access to most of the Spanish literature on this subject, but I find it odd that despite the several detailed discussions of the sources for the battle that I read I find nothing that can shed any light on this paragraph. Srnec (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Concerning numbers
David Levering Lewis does not rely on the Arabic accounts which number the Visigoths at 33,000. He makes mention of the accounts that put the Visigoths at 100,000, and then gives his estimate of 33,000. Seeing that we have two secondary reliable sources, I will mention both number in the Campaign box. Sherif9282 (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Lewis is more general and therefore not as reliable as Collins. What is his basis for his estimates? And what is his source for his general account of the battle? It is undoubtedly a late source. Srnec (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
"(a Marxist)"
Quoth the article:
"Among modern Anglo-American historians, Roger Collins, R. A. Fletcher, E. A. Thompson (a Marxist), and Kenneth Baxter Wolf are sceptical of the Arabic sources..."
What is the particular relevance of calling Thompson a Marxist in a parenthetical? None of the historians are identified by a methodological orientation; it's not obvious how his Marxist analysis (which, I should add, is not the same being a Communist in the sense of supporting Soviet-style regimes) informs his critique of the Arabic sources. I'm going to remove the term; if you think it's relevant to how he analyzes the history under consideration here, please supply details. --Jfruh (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- And what do we make of your parenthetical: "(which, I should add, is not the same being a Communist in the sense of supporting Soviet-style regimes)"? Srnec (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your assumption was wrong, though your fears may have been legitimate. It was added because there was no article as yet on Thompson to explain his historical perspective, which in that one respect is out of keeping with the Anglo-American historiographical tradition with which he is lumped in the text. Note that Roger Collins felt it worth mentioning his Marxism in Collins' own history of the Visigoths. Now that Thompson has his own article it doesn't really matter much. As an aside, I'm glad that "a Marxist" can be taken as a drive-by slander. I like Thompson's work (I've read much of it), but I don't like Marxism. Srnec (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Changed the name of the victor
Why are you using the religion of the victor to name them???
I changed it from "Decisive muslim Victory" to Decisive Umayyad Victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsaces (talk • contribs) 07:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)