Talk:Reconquista/Archive 1

Astures and Cantabri
Can you still talk of Astures and Cantabri in 711? And pagans? --Error 23:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you still can use both terms. I think that both terms were already in use by the late 3rd century on late imperial itineraries. The Visigoth and Suevan kingdoms did not change that much traditional society. More worryingly, most of the account for the early times of the Kingdom of Asturias is hopelessly out of date; it relies heavely on traditional accounts and Claudio Sanchez Albornoz's historical research, which dates from early 1920s (?). Surely, there are better and more uptodate research translated into English or even original research. Sadly, I am not a medieval historian, I am writing from what I remember from my years at University for my BA (General History of Europe & Spain)

Non-Catholics
Is the view that secret Arianists helped Muslims generalized? What about the part of gate openers played by Jews in Medieval chronicles? Is it true or just anti-Semitic? --Error 01:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There is not much published in English, I am afraid. I would recommend you any of the books by Luisa Isabel Alvarez de Toledo. She is the current Duchess of Medina Sidonia, and holder of one of the largest historical archives in Spain. All her books are in Spanish only.

You could also try to dig out an old book in French called Les arabes n'ont jamais envahi l'Espagne, by Ignacio Olagüe. However I am critic of this one for several reasons. If you manage to find it, also look out for Les arabes ont bien envahi l'Espagne, an article published in Annales E.S.C, by Prof. Guichard.

Regarding Sephardim, check the separate wikipedia article, recently updated Asterion 16:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I am very sorry for disturbing you, but do we have a reference for this?

"as Julian, like most of the people in Hispania at the time, was an Unitarian Christian"

As far as I know, please correct me if I am wrong, near every single people of Hispain in that time was in fact Catholic, whith only a few members of the Visigoth ruling elite being Arrian.

jamuki 18:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I have cheked again (for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths) and to the best of my knowlegde, vast majority of the population was Catholic (although some Visigoths were still Arrian). If nobody minds, I will delete the reference to Arrianism tomorrow or the day after.

Thanks a lot and best regards, jamuki 18:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

It's done. I am afraid I forget to login before doing so. My apologies for such an error.

Thanks a lot and apologies again.

jamuki 11:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

When Arabs came to Spain there has been no Arian for a while since the conversion of Goths rulers to catholicism. The choice by Goth or Roman nobles of islam was just a matter to keep their power, nothing to do with some theological choice. Thus the part explaining the conversion with a rejecion of trinitarian catholicism is irrelevant and I will remove it if noone objects.

Map supplied
I've located a four part map and added it here. Removed the map request tag. Durova 02:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup requested
I have requested that this article is cleaned up. I think it has great potential, a lot of useful content, and excellent and effective pictures. But the English is sometimes poor, the perspecive is a bit limited, and sometimes it seems to lack precision.--Stephan Schulz 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't think of how to reword it, but we probably shouldn't use the POV word "liberation" in the intro. Liberation implies freedom from slavery/oppression, and as far as I can tell, Muslim Spain was probably less oppressed than Christian Spain. FireWorks 17:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Muslim Spain was far more oppresive than the Christian. The "tolerance" of Al Andalus it's a joke, and no serious historian will support this idea today. Just read the muslim chronicles.


 * Just a question of esthetics, but the History of Spain box series is really ugly that way... Couldn't it be put a bit lower or to the right, get smaller, something? Lapaz 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at refactoring some of the more clumsy language in there (or at least replacing it with my style of clumsy language), and trying to neutralise some of the more obvious POVvy bits. I still feel that it reads like national myth in places, with (as the article itself admits) a complicated series of events being bolted together and squeezed into a particular narrative framework.  As such I've left the cleanup tag on for now because it really needs someone who understands enough about the topic to know which bits are too narrow in their focus.  I've also gone for "reestablishment of Christian rather than Muslim rule" instead of "liberation".  Putting the Campaignbox at the bottom in the See Also works quite well (at least for the icky browser I'm currently using), but I have a horrible feeling it's a bit of a faux pas.  --Bth 16:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Modern Views" section is still rather POVvy - to put it mildly. None of the assertions therein is verifiable, as there is a complete lack of citations. Pitix 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't there as part missing now between the christian infighting and ferdinand and isabella? romanista 12:00, april 7 2006 (CET)

Introduction and POV
For the second time an anon editor has changed the introduction to refer to concepts like "liberation" and "Muslim invader"s. This is inherently POV; as the article itself makes clear the situation is much murkier and more complicated than that. I'm not claiming the form of words I hit on for my cleanup is any good (in fact I think it's rather ugly), but changes should remain NPOV. --Bth 11:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummm...what's wrong with "conquest" or the more direct "reconquest"? There was no single "Muslim rule", there where a number of quasi-independent states ruled by a Muslim elite. Similarly, of course, there was no single "Christian rule", although the reconquista helped to establish a more-or-less unified Spain. --Stephan Schulz 13:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ad nauseam. This article is constantly changed to reflect either a pro-Christian or pro-Muslim. My example is the section previously reading:


 * "Muslims and Jews were forced to convert to Christianity or leave Spain and Portugal and have their assets seized. Many moved to North Africa rather than submit. Despite that many Christians and Jews were allowed to retain their religions during the Muslim conquest of the peninsula (with less rights, of course), the new Christian rulers did not feel they owed them the same privilege. It seems probable that these policies were not only religiously motivated but also clearly a good excuse for seizing the wealth of the vanquished."


 * which drips POV. Not only does it presume to understand what was going on inside of Ferdinand and Isabella's heads, it openly mocks race relations.  The title "Ethnic Cleansing" may have be roughly similar to the term used at the time, but that term means massacre to the modern ear, where it only meant expulsion then.  The use of the sentence "It seems probable that these policies were not only religiously motivated but also clearly a good excuse for seizing the wealth of the vanquished." uses "It seems probable" to sound more NPOV, but then follows up with the word "clearly" and an attack on the Spanish throne.  I'm NPOV-ing this again, let me know if and how you disagree.
 * -Diabolic 01:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The version I'm unhappy with doesn't use "conquest" or "reconquest" (although those words do somewhat suggest a unified single entity doing the conquering to me), it talks about "liberation" and "invaders". I like JBull12's current version a lot.  (In general, my main issue is that there seems to have been as much Muslim v Muslim and Christian v Christian conflict during the period as Muslim v Christian so portraying it as a one religion against another thing seems overly simplistic.) --Bth 16:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Ethnic Cleansing
The only remaining points of dispute between my (Diabolic.Insidious) edits and those of JBull12 lie within the section currently title "Ethnic Cleansing" which I am reproducing here for stability:


 * ===Ethnic Cleansing===
 * The mixing of Christians, Muslims and Jews was later officially ended by the rules of ethnic or religious purity of the Modern Age, namely the Spanish limpieza de sangre and the expulsion of Jews by Manuel I in Portugal.


 * Muslims and Jews were forced to convert to Christianity or leave Spain and Portugal and have their assets seized. Many moved to North Africa rather than submit. Despite that many Christians and Jews were allowed to retain their religions during the Muslim conquest of the peninsula (with less rights, of course), the new Christian rulers did not feel they owed them the same privilege. It seems probable that these policies were not only religiously motivated but also clearly a good excuse for seizing the wealth of the vanquished.


 * (Revision as of 16:36, 28 April 2006)

I take issue with usage of the title "Ethnic Cleansing" because of the modern (Post-World War II) implications of death camps and mass graves of the Holocaust. The term ethnic cleansing is now a heavily loaded one and cannot reasonably be used to reflect a neutral point of view.

I also take issue with the latter part of the second paragraph, starting with "Despite," because I feel that it carries a mocking tone and makes claims that are not necessarily untrue, but are historically unverifiable; we cannot know what the new Christian rulers were feeling, and if we could, this does not take into account the political landscape of Medieval Europe or the influences of the Catholic church.

The last sentence contains good ideas, but once again takes a sarcastic and synical tone that is historically unwarranted.

Over the past edits the differences between the reversions have diminished and I think that this can be resolved and stabilized to some reasonable degree. --Diabolic 18:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this has been cleared up, or compromised on. I thiink we need some fresh editors to take a look at it. --Diabolic 22:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if anyone knows how to verify and back up the statement that the land that was colonized durring the reconquista was uninhabited.--Dr.Worm 04:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Portugal
We are in need of more information on Portugal in this article, but since it is so long I think it would need to be moved to Spanish Reconquista, and new Portuguese Reconquista article be created with this page acting as a dramatically shorter overview of the two.

I killed the History of Portugal Template because it was ugly-ing up the page. If anyone could do a better job of inserting it I would appreciate.

--Diabolic 01:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. We need an article about Moorish Portugal (please follow wikilink to "Portugal" section) as well. If anyone can help, please do so. The Silves article and Lisbon article ("Moorish Rule" section) may help. Thanks. Stallions2010 21:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the info could be incorporated from Afonso I of Portugal. Perhaps this would be a good wikipedia collaboration? 12.220.94.199 23:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The Caliph of Cordoba and Saint Pelagius - unsupported persistent deletion
I cut this section:


 * His alleged pederastic abuse of a Christian boy, Saint Pelagius of Cordova, became a rallying cry for subsequent generations of Christian soldiers, and is reputed to have provided spiritual energy for centuries to the Spanish Reconquista. However, the episode is seen by modern scholars as part of a pattern of demonization of Muslims and to portray them as morally inferior.

because it is information that falls into the realm of historiography rather than historical fact. The information itself was intended as a moral attack on Islam, and its inclusion on the article, despite disclaimers, continues to act in that regard. If there is a place for this sort of thing I'm puzzled as to where it should go, exactly. --Diabolic 16:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The following text, ''His alleged pederastic abuse of a Christian boy, Saint Pelagius of Cordova, became a rallying cry for subsequent generations of Christian soldiers, and is reputed to have provided spiritual energy for centuries to the Spanish Reconquista. However, the episode is seen by modern scholars as part of a pattern of demonization of Muslims and to portray them as morally inferior. (Walter Andrews and Mehmet Kalpaklı, The Age of Beloveds, Duke Univesity Press, 2005; p.2) has now been removed twice from the article, without any cogent explanation. If you have a problem with it, discuss here please. Haiduc 04:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note I have never removed the text. Nevertheless, I object to the following sentence: "and is reputed to have provided spiritual energy for centuries to the Spanish Reconquista". It is redundant and does not sound neutral to me. I understand this is taken directly from Saint Pelagius' entry in Wikipedia. Regards, --Asterion talk to me 06:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Providing information that is doubted by modern scholars lends the biases of previous historiographical discourse to the current document. If modern scholars do not believe that it was true, why is it there? If someone disagrees with modern scholars they may make their case, but a citation stating that the cited information is untrue hardly stands as support for said information. If the point is that muslims were demonized, then perhaps that thesis should be made more clear, but if the point is to spread a centuries-old rumor that is largely disbelieved by modern scholars, then the statement should be removed. This is my explanation. --Diabolic 09:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think in certain cases, such as a biography of the Caliph or St. Pelagius, information that is probably dubious can be included as long it as marked as controversial and probably not true, just information to know. But in an article about the Reconquista, which is already large, it is not necessary, and clearly an attack on Islam. --JBull12 00:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how this ends, if the boy is in, he should not be in as "Saint Pelagius of Cordova", as he was only canonized a long time later. Also, "pederastic" is a concept that is probably not appropriate to the time. I'd just put it in as "alleged abuse of a  Christian boy". --Stephan Schulz 00:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I’d like to answer the critiques one by one. Regarding Diabolic’s suggestion that this information has a historiographical slant, I would agree. But I wonder whether that aspect can ever be fully detached from historical writing - or whether that automatically disqualifies information from inclusion in an encyclopaedia. It is part of the history of the Reconquista that moral attacks, including homophobic themes, were used to fire up the spirits of the masses. Why avoid confronting the issue?! And the claim that mentioning a slur merely serves the ends of the original polemicist, if accepted, would shut down a great deal of valuable analysis by imputing simplistic thinking to readers who deserve more credit.


 * Asterion’s suggestion that the “spiritual energy” claim is biased is not applicable, since it is the claim of the historians being cited. If you have a reason to believe that they are biased in making that statement, can I ask you what it might be? It is not taken from the Saint Pelagius article, rather both instances are taken from the Andrews and Kalpakli study. And redundant? How?


 * Then Diabolic returns stating that the information is doubted by modern scholars. If true, that also should belong in the article. But which scholars are the ones doing the doubting? Not the two I cited. They simply refer to the incident as “alleged” and focus on discussing the historiography and politics of the story. The story may very well be true. I do not know. Do you? But it is historical, and it seems to be quite important to the politics and religious conflicts of the time. Why are we privileging war over desire? Is that not “pov” itself? Then you seem to question my motives, suggesting I am a rumor monger. That is not my motive. I am simply interested in documenting the interweaving of pederastic eros with the fiber of history. It is a topic that has been intentionally suppressed, and the least we can do here is to restore some semblance of balance to the discussion. If this story was indeed used for centuries as a goad, led to the canonization of a person, and is considered significant by modern scholars, then I submit it is worthy of inclusion.


 * Jbull, I think I have already answered both your objections, that it is “an attack,” and “unimportant.” If the article is too large, then entire sections can and should be spun off. But deleting relevant information degrades the value of our work. Stephan, I would not mind the boy being named “Pelayo,” with a mention of his later canonization. As for “pederastic” not being appropriate to the topic of Andalusian boy love, both Moslem and Jewish, that is not the consensus of the historians writing on the topic, among whom the two cited as well as many, many others. The fact is that “pederasty” has become a generic moniker applied by academics to erotic relations between men and boys wherever they occur, not just in antiquity. Haiduc 02:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

With this explanation Haiduc's motives are certainly less murky, and I hope that he can understand the concern, considering the allegations of "Mohamedian vandalism" that were bantered about in the past weeks when Christian POV was being questioned.

The information need not be completely removed, but it certainly needs some work. As is I am still convinced that it serves the original slander and requires a certain change of mood that I'll try to instate when I'm done here. I don't think readers deserve more credit, though, because slander and racism do not operate on an intellectual level. A study was done (a real study, not one of those abstract "studies have shown," I'll try to get a source in here on monday when I have access) showing that a majority of readers will believe anything they read that reinforces their existing world-view even if that information is later retracted and declared positively false. The example of the study was the modern American Iraq War, where many pro-war activists still believe that Iraq had WMDs (because of a news story that was promptly retrected), whereas Canadian or British citizens at large remember the retraction and do not hold the belief. Although NPOV may never truly be possible, the point is to try to avoid it anyway.

The "Spiritual energy" thing, well, that's just silly. Of course racism fueled the Reconquista, but "spiritual energy" is hardly a measurable factor. If the Andrews and Kalpakli study were on wikipedia, I would have edited it and changed to wording to something more straightforward, I reccomend that their claims be de-emotionalized and serious-ified immediately. Otherwise it still stands for me.

Por fin, I agree that this information should probably be spun off, as should many sections of this article, and I'm open to suggestions as to how to get that started while maintaining the integrity of this article.

--Diabolic 03:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edit seems absolutely fine, thank you. As for spinning things off, I think I may have been misunderstood. Once the article reaches an unmanageable size, subsections that can stand on their own are spun off into independent articles after leaving a summary in place. However, this article is far from being unwieldy, it would have to grow by 50 to 100% before reaching that point, as per current Wikipedia practice, and the information on the use of eros to draw a distinction between opposing camps is quite significant and of historic interest and should not be tucked away in some out of sight place when its primary relevance is to the Reconquista. Haiduc 01:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Great work. I could not have said it any better. These are the times I love Wikipedia (i.e. people reaching consensus instead edit-warring). In any case I would advise to include a comment saying to prevent any drastic removal by newcomers. Regards, --Asterion talk to me 09:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Clever device! Thanks for the suggestion. Haiduc 11:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

copyright infringement?
I found the following text in Spanish: (source: ):

''El nuevo monarca era hijo de Fruela I y la alavesa Munia, formando parte del linaje de Alfonso I. Las dificultades llegaron pronto, procedentes del sur. En los veranos de 792, 793 y 794 diversos ataques cordobeses saqueaban la zona de Alava y el corazón de reino asturiano, llegando hasta la capital, Oviedo. En una de las retiradas Alfonso infligirá una severa derrota a los cordobeses, en la pantanosa zona de Lutos. Precisamente para evitar estos continuos ataques, el rey asturiano iniciará estrechos contactos diplomáticos con los reyes de Pamplona y Carlomagno y su sucesor, Ludovico Pío. El contacto con la corte carolingia motivará la llegada a Asturias de influencias culturales, religiosas o políticas. Al-Hakam I evitará en la medida de los posible que se produzcan estos contactos y atacará la zona de Alava y Lisboa de manera contundente entre los años 798 y 803, aunque el éxito cordobés será muy limitado. Abd al-Rahman III continuará con esta política de campañas anuales, utilizando Galicia como frente de operaciones. Asturias saldrá reforzada de estas campañas ya que afianzará sus dominios en las zonas de Castilla, Galicia y León, poniendo en marcha una intensa labor repobladora en estos territorios. La situación interna del reinado de Alfonso II tuvo un momento de gravedad, entre los años 801 y 808, cuando el rey fue obligado a retirarse al monasterio de Ablaña ante la presión de un grupo nobiliario. Recuperó el trono gracias al noble Teudano, poniendo en marcha desde ese momento una importante labor de reorganización del reino, vinculándose a la herencia visigoda para reforzar el poder real. El anónimo autor de la "Crónica Albeldense" manifiesta que Alfonso restauró en Oviedo "todo el orden gótico toledano, tanto en la Iglesia como en Palacio". Construirá un nuevo palacio en Oviedo que será su centro propagandístico y se distanció de las Iglesias toledana y franca, creando una nueva sede metropolitana en Lugo. El sobrenombre de "el Casto" viene motivado por su renuncia a las mujeres, falleciendo sin descendencia, lo que motivó que la corona recayera en Ramiro I.''

If you speak Spanish you'll see that half of the section of "The beginning of the reconquista: The Kingdom of Asturias" is a literal translation of that webpage. I ask user that inserted this text to specify if this text copyright-free (after navigating the website I doubt it). I believe it should be paraphrased and the source should be cited. Literal translations are not paraphrasing and still constitute copyright infrigement, don't they? --Alonso 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

March 1, 2007 unsourced edits
Today's unsourced edits came from an anonymous IP that deleted pertinent sections recently. Request another editor review additons. Morenooso 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fathers of Racism By Jose Rivera-Molina
This work, published by Taino Independent Press (which does not seem to exist)[], was cited in this article. An editor removed the paragraph and the cite claiming the work was unreliable. I googled the book and found that the only two real hits for it were in Wikipedia itself. I concur with the editor's removal. If the book even exists (and it is not for sale anywhere on the internet) it certainly can't be cited due it being original research. SECisek 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

War?
If this is a war or a campiagn, wheres:

(a) the campaign box (b) war info box Tourskin 03:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep NPOV Tag Up?
Most of the arguments on the this talk page concerning NPOV seem to be out-dated (although I might be wrong). Is there anyone here who still feels that the NPOV tag should be kept up? If no one responds in the next couple of days (by end of 8/12/07 or 8/13/07) in favor of keeping the tag, I will remove it. Of course, please remember that it can be reinserted just as easily, if one wishes. ask123 17:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's August 28 and the NPOV tag is still up. I'm taking it down. There is also a tag stating that "This article does not cite any references or sources," when it most certainly does have sources. If someone feels the sources are inadequate, then it should be labeled as such (i.e., "This article needs additional references or sources for verification"). It is not without sources. I am removing this tag as well. RobertM525 05:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Race
The articles gives the impression the the moors took half of their population into boats to the peninsula. They were concentrated on the military issues, the population remained the same ethnic group of before, just changed the religion and government. The muslim/christian miscigenation was between the same ethnic group, then. At least the great majority. You speak as if those living under the muslim rule changed their races when they changed their religious beliefs, and this is just a way to keep excluding Spaniards from the historical "Europe", labelling them as the bastard children of invasors. It sucks ass, dudes. And I also believe that with the local ethnic group converted, they ruled the land when the time passed. There was no real ethnic change. I read a whole book about it but I can't find the link anymore. Damnit. And there was an "ethnic cleasing" so I can't see why do not call it this way, it's basically what "limpieza de sangre" means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.40.152.210 (talk • contribs)
 * You are basically right. The Ogre 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes..in those times, i believe, it was logistically impossible to bring mass arab and berber imigration to Hispania..the muslim rule was based on a few scattered elites and military.I consider those who say that spaniards/portuguese are jews,arabs,mixed,bastard to be racists,haters and, simply, liers.People should not call other people things they arent.Other thing that its not mentioned here is the "system of castes" imposed by muslim oppression.This system stated, among other things, that christians and jews were not allowed to have land or title, and were considered as sub-human. Lvsitania_Warrior 23:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this statement in the first paragraph really true? -"despite the fact that the majority of the conquered peoples were slaughtered or convertet to Islam " - I understand that they were culturally assimilated to arab and Islam oppression but I am sure that there was never a majority of islam in Muslim Spain. Exceptions were probably a few towns and maybe the region of Granada in its last days. Can someone else confirm/deny this definitively?--AssegaiAli 19:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's the end??
Is there a reason that the article stops short of describing the final 400 years of the Reconquista? It seems to cover most military and political engagements until about 1080, briefly mentions Papal involvement up to 1212, then skips ahead to Modern Views and other epilogical information. What's the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.254.158 (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It needs some major attention, that's all. Srnec 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

About the map, and about the separation between the invastion and the Reconquista
From the article: The Umayyad conquest of Hispania from the Visigoths occurred during the early 8th century, and the Reconquista began almost immediately, in 722, with the Battle of Covadonga, and was completed in 1492, with the conquest of Granada. If this is the case, why is the invasion not pictured in the map animation? If the above is correct, it is much better to view the historic time period as a semi-failed invasion, or whatever you want to call it, but at least as one event. It would also remove doubts as to what the situation at the start of the reconquista was (pictured or not pictured?) or, indeed, the end (not pictured). Shinobu (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The historical story with all the placenames, countynames, etc. etc. is very hard to follow for someone who is not from Spain. Instead of the animated map at the top of the article, which is impractical because the short duration of the frames of the animation do not leave the viewer enough time to read them, the article should have a lot of maps, tied to specific paragraphs, highlighting the situation described there.

Also, nothing is shown of the internal structures of the Moorish lands, whereas the internal structure of the Visigoth lands is shown.

At "By the end of the 10th century, Aragon was annexed by Navarre", the article completely fails to state the circumstances.

This article is in serious need of attention. Shinobu (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. It's a complex topic, so it is not easy to attend to. Perhaps I will completely rewrite and strip it down to a smaller size soon, because the current article is of almost know use. Srnec (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the map have a lot of heavy mistakes:


 * 790: 1. By this time, the eastern limit of the kingdom of Asturies was in present day Cantabria, and didn't include Burgos, Basque Country or Navarre (under muslim power); 2.The southern limit was far in the north and Santiago (took on 800) or Leon (took on 856) was out of the kingdom; 3. Barcelona was conquered by the franks in 801, the frontier was between Gerona and Barcelona; 4. Seville and Cordoba are each one in the place of the other; 5. Balearic islands was under byzantine rule.


 * 900: 1. The kingdom of Galicia born in 910 so by this time this region is Leon; 2. By this time, Castile was a County dependent of Asturias; 3. One of the worst mistakes: Aragon is overextended, Huesca was conquered in 1095 and Tudela in 1110, Tarragona in 1129 but by the catalans those lands was under the power of Cordoba or under (muslim) Zaragoza (conquered in 1118) because in certain sense this last was very independent, other territories was under local muslim lords, independents of Cordoba (Tudela for example); 4. Balearic islands was independent, not wasnt't conquered by the Emirate until three years later.


 * 1150: 1. Galicia was in this time a County dependent of Leon; 2. Castille and Leon was united, and splited again in 1157; 3. Catalonia wasn't an entity with that name, but County of Barcelona with other smallest counties dependent of Barcelona.


 * 1300: 1. Castille and Leon was united, the internal division of the Crown is highly inacurate; 2. Present Basque Country was a castilian territory; 3. Navarra was part of the French kingdom 4. The Crown of Aragon was the political entity of eastern Iberia, and was divided in three differents kingdoms: Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia (wich wasn't splited in two like show the map), was a federal entity not a property of Aragon; 5. Balearic island was and independent kingdom (plus Roseillon) althought vassal of Aragon.

In the last three maps the Kingdom of Navarra is overextended in the north, in the last two maps Tudela should be a portion of Navarra.

regards --Bentaguayre (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I will put this same points on the discussion of the image. --Bentaguayre (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What do we truly know about these persons
Look I never claim to know everything about the Reconquista (I rather acknowledge that I know very little about it). However I honestly believe that you are being reckless and that the information that you are including is dubious to say the least.


 * 1st) You began with a glorious statement about the creation of a single catholic nation at the end of the Reconquista. Somehow you managed to forget Portugal. No comments.


 * 2nd) Reading the article Spania it seems that the Byzantine possessions were lost way before Roderic. This creates a contradiction. Could you provide any source that states that Roderic was the responsable for this?


 * 3rd) Are you sure that Roderic was fighting against the Basques before the Muslim raid?


 * 4th) To simply repeat popular legends about the backround of Roderic, Julian, his daughter, and Pelagio is unwise. Very little is known about them (and almost nothing is known for sure). Please provide a source/historian asap. Granted that many historians simply repeat old stories, propaganda, and simple lies, but at least we know whom to blame. Flamarande (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead
Problems with old lead: Srnec (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Christian rulers widely proclaimed that they were re-conquering Christian territory previously lost to Muslim invaders." This was not just proclaimed. It's fact. The Visigothic state, practically church-ruled, lost almost all its territory to Muslim invaders. It was this territory which the Christian rulers of Spain were (re-)conquering during the Reconquista.
 * 2) "This ensured that Christian reinforcements would continue to arrive from other Christian realms, especially because the Papacy in Rome continued to support such efforts." This is just out of place. The Reconquista was a long process, this ignores its first two/three hundred years.
 * 3) "reinforced through marriage". Was this all that common? Not to my knowledge, but I may be wrong. It certainly happened on a few occasions.
 * 4) "Blurring the sides even further were groups of mercenaries who disregarded the religious sides on several occasions, fighting simply for whomever paid them better." Again, how common was this really?
 * 5) "The Battle of Covadonga in 722 is considered the official beginning of the Reconquista." Just plain bizarre. There is no "official" beginning.
 * 6) "The Portuguese Reconquista ended in 1249..." This is hindsight and anachronism. There was no way to know that the Portuguese would not have further wars with the Moors, nor is the "Portuguese Reconquista" any more distinct than any other regional effort. The Navarrese Reconquista ended in the eleventh century, I believe. The Portuguese Reconquista no more led to the formation of modern Portugal than a host of other events, or any more than the Catalan Reconquista led to the formation of modern Catalonia. A dichotomy into Spanish and Portuguese Reconquistas is purely arbitrary and backwards looking. Regional divisions of the Reconquista are rational, but not an anachronistic Spain/Portugal dichotomy.


 * Never said that the old lead was perfect. I just advising you to be cautious and to make a slim and light lead. There are plenty of articles with hideously bloated and heavy entries out there. That doesn't mean that we have to do the same mistakes.


 * 1) When does a re-conquest end and a plain conquest begin? After 50 years, or 100, or even 200? The Reconquista took 800 years. Notice the similarities between the Reconquista and the Crusades. In both cases the Christian leaders proclaimed that they were reconquering lost territories of Christianity. In one we decided that it was a re-conquest but in the other it wasn't. What's the diff? IMHO we want to justify the first (Why? is another matter) but are unable to do so with the second (because the Christian side lost). We have to be cautious in not taking sides and "in which several Christian kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula expanded themselves at the expense of the Muslim states of al-Andalus" is IMHO objective.
 * 2) Agreed, never said that that part was perfect.
 * 3) I vaguely remember learning about this in school (in the end the royal families of both sides were all related to each other) but I might be mistaken.
 * 4) Read El Cid, the "greatest Christian knight and champion" who worked a lot of times as a mercenary leader for several Muslim rulers. There were also others.
 * 5) There is never a official beginning for most historical developments (end of the Middle ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment). But historians (and the older ones were simply a bit more obvious in their POV) choose certain events and point at them and claim: that was the beginning of... . a famous example is the Fall of Constantinople, which was considered the end of the middle ages. Mark that none of this is undisputed.
 * 6) Historians write history in hindsight. Anachronism never stopped anyone: "Byzantine" is a 17 century invention, but now it is an official term used by historians throughout the world.
 * 7) In Portugal the term "Reconquista Portuguesa" = 'Portuguese Reconquest' does exist, but perhaps it doesn't in the English speaking world (to distinguish between Spanish and a Portuguese achievements? How quaint old chap = joke :). However Google shows that the term is used. I admit that at least half of the hits are simple mistakes. The Portuguese (and the Spanish) would continue their fights with the Muslims later (read Ceuta). The Portuguese Reconquista is distinct exactly because it created Portugal at all (before Spain), and it wasn't a regional effort because it never became a region (of Spain) in the first place. It created a independent country.


 * In the end I'm just advising you to go ahead but be cautious. I don't own the article, and I'm quite busy at "Roman Empire". However I believe that the article is much better than it was before I started improving it. Compare the "before" with the "after my (Flamarande) work". Check other articles, create sub-sections, provide links, give sources. For example I never got to the "military culture part" but I read a bit about it (I began at the top and got as far as "crossed the Pyrenees and besieged the city for two years until the city finally capitulated on the 28 of December 801."). A lot of talk about knights and not a single word about jinetes. Flamarande (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Map
On the discussion page for the current map on this article, there are full lists of the errors in it. So, I uploaded a new map (which could have been improved of course, but it didn't have errors), apparently which was a bad map. Well then I really question the use of the current map which seems to be more preferred. I guess it is because it has that "cool" animation and those nice colors, not the content which is totally misleading and useless. Actually I think its kind of amazing just how its possible to get so many errors into one map. (Cities shown being conquered 200 years before it actually happened etc.)

I understand if my map wasn't preferable, but the map that is now should at least be taken away. So, someone should make a new map, you just can't come around with a map which is a complete fabrication. Gabagool (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Portugal? Aragon?
Again: What about PORTUGAL and ARAGON????

What about the Southeast, Baleares and Mediterraneum? more on the Aragonese and Catalan influence?

What about southwest, from the Tagus River to the Alentejo and Algarve - and the decisive paper of Portugal in the world - and until Ceuta, Tanger and other several Moroccan cities conquered by Portugal after 1415. But exactly on the Iberian Peninsula - wich deals this Article, lacks information on the two Kingdoms above - altought for Portuguese and Spaniards North Africa of Hispania Tingitania or Southern Algarves was part of the Reconquista.

And the Moorish cultural substratum in these territories: the southWest and the northeast and the extrem East wich always stops beyond Granada, Córdoba, Toledo "exclusivism" in this and other articles, either about " Al-Andaluz" or "Reconquista"?

The articles have to be one relative Synthesis, but they have to be more complete! friends of wikipedia: You Can! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Historiography
There could perhaps be a separate article on the historiography of the Reconquista, explaining the various historical views on the matter. Other controversial historigraphies include the Wars of religion and the Spanish Inquisition. ADM (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Confusing section
The first paragraph, and the first sentence in particular of Foundations of the christian kingdoms in the peninsula is extremely confusing. I'm not entirely sure what point is being made, and would appreciate some help in rewriting it, possibly providing wiki-links for concepts not explained there. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 21:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole section seems completely devoid of wikilinks or references, as if it were copied wholesale from a non-wiki source. Has it been checked for copyvio? And even if it's not a copyvio, it needs wikifying. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote the Article
Biased article(in part of course)in contrast to the high quality in other parts of the article. Portugal was one of the less feudal european kingdoms(after the County), based on free foralist "Conselhos"(see forais) for all the country since the County times(even as political support to the King)as Castile in another way. This spirit continued shortly after(and on) the reconquista, with the first successful popular urban revolutions and urban councils-cities and vilas of peasants and burgoises in 1245-48(the first) and in 1383-1385 (among the first successful popular revolutions of European history) supporting princes or kings candidates to the throne.

Spanishcentred article in genneral and Castillianleonesecentred article. Aragon and Portugal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.156.104 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Chess game pic
It is probably this image but I'd rather a cleaner version. It could go on top of the article as it could symbolize a long combat between Islam and Christianity. --84.20.17.84 12:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alfonso X Libro F64R.jpg. --Error (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Arabic name
the Arabic name is not: السقوط which means: the fall, but سقوط الاندلس which means the retreat, the defeat. this name is the name widely known in Arabic sources--NadirSall (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be. However the translation chosen here means almost the same as reconquering - they are synonyms. The fall is not a synonym to reconquering. --Morenooso (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * medival and modern Arabic sources call it the fall, we should mention that--NadirSall (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable source, cite it and it's okay but don't delete the other synonym in the process. Other wikis are not allowed. --Morenooso (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am willing to concede that article may not have an international view of the subject. Perhaps a section on the invaders can be written in a neutral prose along with citations. --Morenooso (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is completely wrong
From beginning to end. It's based on Dr. Sánchez Albornoz's theories, that are nowadays found to be almost an invention: they don't coincide with either Islam or European sources. The Kingdom of Asturias was only an internal designation for the Kingdom of Gallaecia (thats how it's called by external observers), in which every region had its own realm designation (rei de Lugo, rei de Tui, etc...). We can't even confirm the "Pelagi" (Pelayo in spanish) origins. He could be Visigoth, Swabian, or even British (as his name suggests). Anyway, he was a galician rooted noble that after his expulsion from the Tui Court, gained a lot of prestige reconquering Asturias and creating his own kingdom. That's why he became so popular that the rest of gallaecian kings saw him as their fair leader. It's proven that Gallaecia was never conquered by the Muslims, but Asturias was -that name didnt exist at the time-, so Galicia was the core of the early reconquista and its further backbone. This all should be correctly depicted in this article, but even the greatest specialists have serious doubts about this dark period. 88.25.235.209 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the Muslim invaders were actually from Mars! Come on! Give us break! User:88.25.235.209 opinions are just Galician nationalistic POV! The Ogre 07:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact Asturian Mountains was the place where the future Portuguese-to-be retreated to..to escape Muslim invasion. In fact the Portuguese's second largest city Porto(in English "Oporto") is still today nicknamed as Invicta (in English "Invincible, untouched, irreductible") because they pride themselves oo having never been conquered by the Moors, and even, as typical insult, they call Lisboa (Lisbon, Portuguese capital) people "mouros"(in english "Moors") due to traditional rivalry between the two biggest cities and North-vs-South Portuguese rivalry. Saying the Muslims conquered past "Douro" river is non-sense. At most the Moors conquered as far as the ortuguese city of Coimbra. P.S.-In these comments i only refer to the Portuguese side of "reconquista" in the territory that is called today Portugal and Galizia. About the Spaniard side, i know nothing. LightBringer_PT 00:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fellow LightBringer, i think you are mistaken, see Porto --Bentaguayre 09:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

LightBringer PT (whose name is already a political statement...) is, in fact, 89.26.217.119, and, I believe, not a properly registered user... And his statements about the history of the city of Porto a complet fabrication. Porto was indeed under Moorish control until its recapture under the first Count of Portugal Vímara Peres in 868. The name Invicta was given to it for having resisted a military invasion in the 19th century by the Imperial Napoleonic Armies. The Ogre 12:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You would still be wrong. Porto city didn't exist. Porto was a... port. Servicing the city of Gaia, south of the river Douro89.152.106.107 (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

From history facts, this article part is absolutely fantasy, this came maybe from a nacionalist (nacionalista gallego) (Asturias had only Asturias and Cantabria armies, no Gaellic Kingdom survive the muslim rule, and no Gaellic Kingdom even exist, it was a Suevos Kingdom,...)


 * The Suevi Kingdom was still inhabited by Gallicians, Celtics, or Celtiberians, whatever you want to call them. So what exactly would be the difference? You seem particularly excited with this issue, when all that matters is historical reality, not opinion or emotion. 89.152.106.107 (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This map is a disaster, I delete it for this reasons


If we say that 'King Arthur' helped 'El Cid' in 'La reconquista', we probably will be more accurate than this map. In historical terms it's a complete disaste:

1. The Omeya caliphate never arrived to the Catabrian coast.

2. The basque country belonged to Castile or to Navarre depending of the period or the zone.

3. The visigothic Kingdom is bad situated.

4. The Bizantine Empire included more than the Balearics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.31.194 (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I never claim to be all wise in these matters. I'm just trying to improve this article into something better. However:

1) If we accept that Pelagio lead a rebellion against the local Muslim governor Munuza we have to follow the logic that the Muslim had at the very least a temporary control of the area (you can't lead a revolt against the local governor if there isn't any local governor present in the first place).

2) AFAIK the nations of Castile and Navarre hadn't been established yet. However the Basques managed to crush Roland and rear force of Charlamagne's army. So the Basques seem to be already there...

3) Agreed, however a remaining piece of the Visisgothic kingdom seems to have survived the initial invasion. As far as I have gathered the Muslims invaded and finished Septimania only in 719. And no one is sure when Ardo died.

4) I don't know about the extent of the Byzantine territories inside the Iberian peninsula around 711. I know there is a weak theory that Julian, count of Ceuta might have been a Byzantine governor. Could you give me an article about this issue (the Byzantine territories inside the Iberian peninsula around 711)? A good web-site would be nice. First you removed a map without giving any reason (or proper comment) at all. I reverted that (what was I supposed to think?). You remove it yet again and leave a warning to look at the talkpage? No, when someone reverts something like that, one is advised to give one's reasons first. I looked around and this map seems to be the only one showing the Iberian peninsula shortly after the invasion. I'm more than willing to replace it with a better one. However a bad map might be better than no map at all. A few advices: New posts in the talkpage are always written below older posts, and signing your posts is advisable. Flamarande (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I won't remove this map anymore, but I think that this kind of things contribute to the descredit of wikipedia. If you backtrack the origin of this map you will realize that this map was created by catalonian nationalistics to support pseudo-cientifical theorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.239.113 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me comment that I largely despise separatists, secessionists and similar kinds of scum (unless the people (the minority) is truly oppressed - which isn't the case of Spain since the death of Franco and the re-introduction of democracy - I tend to respect serious and responsible regional autonomists). i agree that the map is suspect. However there isn't any other map that I could find. A fair and visible warning about this mater is in the text. And the four issues raised above? Care to give me some valuable information? Flamarande (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So the American forefathers were scum? Colonies getting their independence? Holland becoming independant from Spain? All "scum"? Good lord... At any rate: Yes, the map is atrocious, most of the articles about Iberia in the English section seem to be erronious. The English seems to be particularly ignorant about foreigners, and thus we lack accurate info in English that is in public domain to be distilled by English writers here. Some of the maps are so wrong it's not even funny. I mean, utterly, completely wrong: in time, space, and chronology. Wrong dates, wrong events, wrong territories belonging to the wrong side. At this point, if all the information you know about the Reconquista is what you've read on this website, you don't know much, worse, what you know is wrong, categorically wrong 89.152.106.107 (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Crusade
"The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns sanctioned by the Papacy that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries." Reconquista cannot be classified as such. Furthermore, modern historical views disconnect the reconquista from a merely religious war. J4vier ---
 * From the article
 * The Popes called the knights of Europe to the Crusades in the peninsula. French, Navarrese, Castilian and Aragonese armies united in the massive battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (1212).
 * If a Pope calls for a crusade, it is a crusade. The conquest of Constantinople was a crusade as well, because it was made by crusaders on behalf of Venice. -- Error 01:44, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. In 1204 the Pope called for a Crusade against the Muslim powers in Syria. Just because certain members of that Crusade violated their mission and took Constantinople does not mean the papally sanctioned Crusade was fulfilled. Innocent III condemned the taking of Constantinople immediately.

---
 * The Popes may have called so in order to exagerate the conflict as a religious one in order to obtain power in the new Iberian Peninsula. To catagorize the reconquista as a crusade does not seem very logical or scientific and it is very misleading; one thing is writing that "the pope called a crusade" what is a fact, other is for us to categorize it as one, that is, to accept a very narrow point of view which historically is vey loose.


 * Forgive my ignorance, but why do these wars not count as crusades? Bastie 20:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

There were wars between christians and muslims without crusader spirit, like the wars of X century, and other wars that were authentics crusades like the campaign of Las Navas or Barbastro in 1064 (the very first crusade, here the Pope called to the christians for fight)


 * These wars are in fact crusades. Jonathan Riley-Smith, the English-speaking world's foremost living expert on the subject treats them as such. In his Atlas of the Crusades crusade is defined as "wars fought against those who were perceived to be external or internal foes of Christendom, for the recovery of Christian property or in the defense of the Church or Christian people."  They are crusades, indeed. 23 June 2007
 * Never did sign this...SECisek 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above user is correct. There is no question that the Reconquista was essentially a long Crusade to drive out Islam and restore Christian rule. Of course there were other elements in addition to the religious aspect, but medieval historians have universally identified this struggle as a part of the larger Crusades movements alongside the campaigns to the Holy Land, the Baltic, and others. One of the definitive books about the Reconquista, "Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain", by the world class scholar of Spanish history Joseph O'Callaghan, makes this absolutely clear in its title alone. I am amazed that there are still people who don't understand this. One of the major characteristics of a Crusade according to medievalists like Riley-Smith and O'Callaghan, is that it is a war sanctioned by the papacy as meriting absolution of sin for the combatants. Since the pope issued Crusade indulgences for virtually every Muslim-targeting war in Iberia after 1100, the campaigns of the Reconquista fall into the category of Crusades. These indulgences attracted knights from all over Europe, who participated in the Spanish Crusades just as others went to fight in the Holy Land or in the Baltic.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.184.121 (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

[from the main page]

Christians figthting for the Moors?
The topic comes from medieval total war 2. Christian Knights fiht for the moors in the game however i havent been able to find info backing that idea up. Do we have any proof this happened in large numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.55.151 (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No. It didn't. And certainly no mention of meaningful numbers. 89.152.106.107 (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Depends on what you mean. Several hundred Christian knights were sent by Leon/Castile to help protect the Taifa of Zaragoza from an attack by Ramiro I of Aragon, the two sides fighting at the Battle of Graus. Agricolae (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In 711 visigothic spain was not arian but catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.147.254 (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Arianism was deal with during the fall of Rome and Rise of the Papacy, as well as all other Gnostic heresies.


 * Nonsense! Arianism wasn't Gnostic. Arianism was monarchic and regarded "the son" subordinate to "the father". They regarded God being "the father", not the sum of "the father", "the son" and "the holy ghost", like trinitarians do. Original Catholicism (including Protestants, Anglicans and all Orthodoxes) is considerably more "gnostic" than Arianism by vindicating the Trinity, which is a major "gnostic" influence. But real gnosticism was mainly something else: an entirely foreign cosmology. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Arianism stuff
Now, the section Early Christianity mentions Arianism as if that be relevant, which it isn't. The Visigoths themselves abolished Arianism by the rule of Reccared I in 586–601 and forcibly merged the Arian churches and their clergy with the Catholic ones. This was due to a longtime policy from Liuvigild and forth to unify the Latin and Visigothic population to an early "Spanish" nation. It's doubtful whether the Visigoths still spoke visigothic at that time, instead there are indications of a visigothic vulgar latin dialect. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would add: the entire section Early Christianity speaks theatrical sports commentor rubbish by expressing opinionations like
 * "possibly the largest mistake of the"
 * "indeed if they tried to conquer", and
 * "However, because the Visigothic Monarchy (now Catholic) was detached from the public (Arian), the Arian undercurrent remained."
 * making assumptions that require knowledge of alternate histories. In cases like this, the stringency of logical positivism makes sense, where only factual statements are accepted as valid, such as: "the umayyad moors invaded", "christian states remained", "neither the umayyad, nor their successors invaded the north". Not mentioning alleged purpose nor alleged reason. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Genocide
3 million native Iberian were slaughtered by the Moors or they were forced to become Islam. This kind of crime against humanity should have been mentioned in the article. But of course this is a western web site, western people don't do crimes against easterns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.164.72 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Chocheneguer (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Can you provide any source for this? 3 million? Let me do not believe it at all; simply for one reason: this would have been all the population of the peninsule at that time (romans-visigoths, not iberians), and the peninsula did not seem to be dispopulated after the arab invasion, but just the opposite. The arab army was relatively small and took few people to their new land. They converted the local people giving them advantages if they converted to Islam, just as they did in other former roman regions (northern africa or middle east) and became their masters; the local populations were not replaced by arab colons in any way. There are few to nothing historical proof for that 'genocide'(?), while at the other hand there is a lot of evidence of genocide by the christians when they 'reconquered' arab regions centuries later.

Views from the outside
I am an African American who happens to be a islam. This article is on my watchlist as I keep an eye on it just looking for obvious vandalism. That used to be a problem with this article.

Is it just me or is this article severly lacking in any content on the invaders who were involved? I mean the original conquerors of the Visigoth's are mentioned but that's about it. It talks about the Millitary equipment of the Christians in detail but says nothing of that of the invaders. It does not mention any of the great battles that were fought there. Unless I am mistaken it does not men I mention the Almohades because in many ways the last phase of the reconquista is all about the collapse of that particular islam oppression. Then the inability or unwillingness of it's sucessors islamists to besiege it.

Let me put it this way. If I was a space alien and just sat down to read a little wikipedia, saw this article.... I would come away thinking that the reconquista was a total cake walk. In which a group of oppressive invaders blundered into invasion of Iberia for centuries, and just waited, passively, for Christian kinghts to throw them out.

There's no problem with this article. It make scant mention of invaders as being actively involved in events and writes of them as just pasive. --Hfarmer (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My friend, be bold! If you have those infos and sources please add them! The Ogre (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Who happens to be a islam..." LOL! Jersey John (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Spanish reconquista.gif Nominated for Deletion
And delete an article about an important historical period?

Confused timeline in introductory passage?
I found this part confusing:

"The main phase of the Reconquista was completed by 1492, after the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, when the sole remaining Muslim state in Iberia, the Emirate of Granada, became a vassal state of the Christian Crown of Castile. This arrangement lasted for 250 years until the Castilians launched the Granada War of 1492, (...)"

To me it reads this way:


 * 1492: Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, Reconquista completed.
 * ... +250 years ...
 * 1492: Granada War of 1492

Is the first occurence of 1492 wrong? (Hinrich, Wiki newbie) 194.45.150.17 (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The end game was like this:
 * 1212 Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa - breaks the back of the Almohad dynasty's military that was having much success up to then.
 * From 1212 to 1252 the shattered Almohad holdings in southern Spain are picked off by the Christian forces, leaving only the small Emirate of Granada in the south-east. You could say that this is the end of the "main phase" of the the Reconquista, if you like.
 * 230 years later, 1482-92 the war against Granada marks the completion of the Reconquista.

BACKGROUND/Islamic Rule/Final para
My comments relate to the para beginning "After the Islamic Moorish conquest....." which I find problematic for the following reasons: 1 "Arian Chistianity was devastated" is incorrect since the Visigoths were not Arian having long since converted to Nicene Christianity. Moreover, while the Visigoths themselves were "devastated" by the rapid defeats at the hands of the Moorish armies, Christianity survived under the Moors. It can be debated the extent to which this was true throughout the peninsula since it is known that the Moors ruled through individual generals in their respective centers of power reporting loosely back to Cordoba so the treatment of Christians could vary accordingly. 2 The Franks at the time of the Moorish invasion were not Carolingian but Merovingian. It was only with Pepin's ascent to power in 751, that the Carolingian dynasty began. 3 It is true that the Franks by now (711) ruled almost all of what is now France to the Pyrenees, but the Franks did not destroy "the last remaining Visigothic province in the north of the peninsula". Rather the Visigoths themselves maintained a last stronghold in what is now Asturias between the Cantabrian mountains and the sea. The Moors made several attempts to subdue them as this article later attests, but failed and essentially left them alone after their defeat at the Battle of Covadonga. Instead, presumably considering them an irrelevant irritant in this bleak wilderness, passed them by en route to the greater glory of invading the Frankish lands north of the Pyrenees. In fact, as stated later in the article, this Visigothic stronghold expanded and consolidated power over the course of the next 80 years eventually being recognised by the Franks as allies against the Moors. As such, I have taken the liberty of editing this para accordingly. Mariscalcus (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Concept and Duration
The short section at the start after the introduction distinguishing between the periodization known as the Reconquista and the development of Reconquista ideology is useful but it should not be used for pre-empting the article on the actual historical development of the ideology, which is explained in the article. Provocateur (talk)
 * Sorry but I have no time to go through you all your edits one by one, use the Sandbox if you intend to go on a major makeover of the article, always sticking to good faith and respect. Listen, GO TO TALK before editing after the original edit (me) has undone yours. You are pushing all the time a single point of view and undoing others that don´t suit your one, by repeating for one all the time Christian or altering what the source says in the Concept and duration, which shows a clear tendenciousness. Other editing of good excerpts remain unexplained, do explain if your are altering the essence of the content (significant alteration in Military culture in to name one). I have left some of your contributions if that makes matters more convivial.Iñaki LL (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you are edit warring and showing VANDALIC BEHAVIOUR. You are breaching the rules of Wikipedia by repeatedly breaking edition and cooperation rules, failing to comply with etiquette, etc. I will have take this a step further. By the way, sign your comments. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll go through it here:

1 It takes until the third sentance to tell us the date at which the the "traditional" periodization begins but fails to tell us when it ends. Surely the whole point of this sentence (and paragraph) is to give us the starting and ending dates of the Recoquista. Instead we have to wonder down another three paragraphs before we get to the fall of Granada in 1492. This should be in the first sentence!

2 Twentieth-century Spanish historiography stressed the existence of a linear phenomenon by which Iberian kingdoms opposed and reconquered the Muslim kingdoms understood as a common enemy. The term "linear phenomenon" is something out of physics. I do not know if this is your expression or you borrowed it from some writer on the Reconquista, regardless, it is pretentious and incorrectly used anyway. A physicist would tell you that phenomenon can be linear or non-linear in their behaviour and that, in fact, most phenomenon in the universe is non-linear. The assumption made in the quoted sentence that a series of events have to be "a linear phenomenon" for them to be connected in a legitimate periodization is false. Anyway, "traditional historiography" never fell into the mistake of using such pseudo physics jargon. Those who practised it were classically trained and would have instantly seen through its pretention and confusion. Better expressions are "connections", "continuities", etc.

3 The last sentence of the first paragraph Despite traditional claims of its beginning in the Battle of Covadonga (maybe 722), the ideology of Reconquest started to take shape at the end of the 9th century.[1] finally tells us the starting date of the Reconquista period, but only incidently, since its purpose seems to be to dismiss it! "Maybe" I'll have a beer at the pub tonight or "maybe" i'LL go on holiday at Christmas but for historical dating purposes, "maybe" is totally inappropriate. If the date is uncertain you can say "approximately", "about", "around", etc, or you might give a range "sometime between 718 to 722". 4 Again, concerning the sentence quoted in 2: Periodizations by historians do not depend on the ideology of the period. They depend on the historian finding a connection between events across time. Please carefully read the article on periodization, it's far from perfect but it gets the basic ideas across well enough.

5 Surely the last sentence of the first paragraph (quoted in 2) and the first sentence of the next paragraph A landmark was set by the Christian Prophetic Chronicle (883-884), a document stressing the Christian and Muslim cultural and religious divide in Iberia and the necessity to drive the Muslims out. belong together in the same paragraph since this document is the earliest surviving major document we have of said ideology.

6 The Crusades which started late in the eleventh century only exacerbated this religious ideology,..... "Only exacerbated" ? - now this is veering into moral disapproval! This article is supposed to be a historical tract, not a moral sermon. Anyway, why are we talking about the Crusades here, they are dealt with later in the article. What purpose is served by pre-empting the rest of the article except to duplicate?

7 Propagandistic accounts of Muslim-Christian hostility came into being to support that mindset: most notably, the Chanson de Roland, a highly mythical re-creation of the Battle of Roncevaux Pass (778) that until not long ago was taught as true in the French educational system. Whoa! This monstrous sentence immediately follows the moralising sentence mentioned earlier, in the third paragraph. I didn't know that the Chrisitan Reconquista and its Muslim counterpart had Public Relations offices, but hell, weren't they advanced back then in them Middle Ages! And what are we doing here talking about mindsets here? This is supposed to be a piece of historical, not psychological literature. I thought we were reading about Iberian history and now we get the French Education System mentioned here! My head is spinning! This whole paragraph is redundant.

8 At last we arrive at the last paragraph and get the information that should have been presented to us in the very first sentence of the first paragraph. Namely, the "traditional" historigrahically determined events and their dates for the beginning and end of the period. Provocateur (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, now yes you come after all (...). Have a bit of respect to contributors and we may sort out some things. The paragraph at the end is not mine but I just respected because it was there. Sure date things ("periodization") are stated at the beginning and I don´t have a doubt it ends in 1492. Now we are talking basically about a later construction, that is, not so much about the real events but about a later very specific ideological development. I am not dismissing the article out of hand, but it needs a good explanation at the beginning of the article, the Spanish wikipedia gives a pretty good introductory clarification. The establishment of the beginning of the "Reconquista", literally 'the reconquest', in 722, or 718, apart from being a cliché you may want to defend, is as vague and misleading as the concept itself. This has been clarified at the very beginning, adding a citation. However, it may be added "some historians hold that", since it has been said and taught so up to date, in Spain at least.
 * "Linear" is a word used on the cited book, maybe (but I can´t confirm since they have left that page out of public domain) on the paragraph stating that idea. Petty thing anyway, use 'continuous'. Sorry but the second part of your 2nd paragraph ("The assumption made..." ) is just background noise to a hardly tenable assumption such as establishing that a 'reconquest' started in 722 (clarified anyway on the source added), and not in Toulouse 721, but feel free to add another reliable source stating so.
 * It may be added approx. or approximately, around, circa... No objections.
 * The "periodization" thing: Ideas are related to actions and (this is so) ideas drive actions. Your attempt to divide some historical events from its ideological context is just false. The ideas give (gave) a continuity to the events, but then you would have to acknowledge that an idea of reconquering only started in the 11th century, while admittedly its roots were sown in the late 9th century.
 * The only "surviving" document yes, this is a pointless remark, all the documents are the only surviving ones, unless we have a lead or strong reason to think there was another one before that has been lost.
 * Please clarify your 6th point, I don´t know what it is about, "moral disapproval"... Sorry I'm lost, I guess you are talking more about a sentiment of yours than about the statement itself. You might as well delete all your 'threat' and 'Muslim invaders' which just show POV. Please add accuracy to the article, not ambiguity and incorrect facts, like the conquest of Septimania in 719 (well dubious) instead of Narbonne in 719 (attested). You might add a reliable source anyway and that should do.
 * Again, I think you are talking about your feelings than about the statement. The second part about the French Education System, yes, is meant to clarify a confusing and telling situation spread by your beloved traditional historiography up to date. No source added, but do you mean is not true? Tell me is not true. I have had many French friends in their 30s that when asked they answer Roland was defeated by the Sarracins. However, yes, I guess it can be included in another section. If your head spinning take a tablet, your feelings are not my concern, but the facts and good content added to the Wikipedia, of course it can always be improved. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Inaki, your tone is uncalled for. Provacateur layed out the arguments clearly and concisely, and in a civil manner. Your comments throughout this thread do not show assumption of good faith, and are, to be honest, quite rude in parts. Please refrain in the future. In terms of the content, I read through Prov.'s comments, and agree with what he states. The elements he points out stray from the topic, fall dangerously close to POV pushing, and are often extraneous. I agree with the proposed solutions. Please...this is wikipedia, it is a place where any content can be changed...you seem very defensive that your content is being edited. If that's the case, perhaps you should provide content elsewhere. Part of editing wikipedia is knowing that rational arguments and good sources will lead to changes, even to content you personally like.Jbower47 (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Jbower47, thanks for commenting on my interventions, I don´t understand however this focus on what I say or I don´t say, you may of course, but honestly it takes me quite aback that no comment is made on Provocateur´s edits, when there is so much to say about - they are clearly disruptive, not explaining or just vague and POV explanations, not any reliable source added, they are reactive, not contributing anything except a better English than mine (please correct my English if it is wrong or not very good!). You might as well go through the timing of the edits, anyway everything is there. I don´t understand what you are saying about Prov´s comments, please can you come to detail before proceeding to the final edit? Iñaki LL (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Map
The first map is utterly wrong, it should be removed. The borders of the kingdoms don't match with the real ones in most cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.220.24 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese and Spanish colonial empires
I did not insert the mention of these empires in the lead of the article, but I think that it is very important to mention which is the period after the Reconquista (the same as it is important to mention the period before). Moreover — it is interesting for the reader to know that after this period those Christian kingdoms continued their expansion even far away from the Iberian Peninsula. So please, stop deleting that part, unless there is a good reason to do that. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 07:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits on Barcelona 801 conquest
Hi there, I see you keep editing without explanation. Brief, Charlemagne didn´t conquer this city, it was Louis the Pious probably under the military command of William of Orange/Gellone. I don´t know why you cite 809 either. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Too many omissions
I apologize my poor english. I read in the section intitled Chevalry: "The peones were peasants who went to battle in service of their feudal lord". Lines before the article sais that common chevalry where composed by free subjects from foral towns and cities. A little bit inaccurate, isn´t it?

First of all, where are the gap betwen one peón and one common knight? How the serfs became serf-Knights? There are other way, rigor and precission: Can we forget the importance of the ecclesiastical and seglar "Órdenes Militares" that mainly articulated the participation of nobles in the Reconquista in favor of some kind of feudal states? No Round Tables (even square ones) were found in the Peninsula.

Second. The process of reconquista needed to estimulate the constant movilization, that´s the reason of the Fueros. Cities control huge territories and had privileges against nobility in the new lands devastated by war, the "extremaduras" is a term used to define the progresively new and new gained lands and were ruled by royal laws. And, don´t forget, all the peninsula were originally under control of moors.

Third. Even if Wikipedia forget some concept or fact, it doesn´t mean that it doesn´t exist. In those times were in towns some institutions called "milicias de concejo", where voluntary the common people form an army. Please, don´t confuse the one hundred years war with this phenomena. Also most rural common people where occupied in the transhumancy livestock ruled by la Mesta, a legal entity as free as the medieval guilds were.

To recreate the spirit of those times, I found in the next generation after the conquer of Granada, those men who did the conquista of the Indias, some inspirational principles. An example I found: Bernal Díaz del Castillo in his "Truly History of the conquer of Nueva España" remembered the old words he received from tradition: "castile women gave birth warriors" and he precised that almost in the past this words were a sensible truth. The generation after Granada where inspired by his predecessors and they had freedom to follow his own destiny in the service of God and the Monachy looking for glory (I translate: richness and a good reputation, but mainly richness).

This World would be a simple World if only one point of view help to us in the labour of understanding. The eschema of the One Hundred Years War would be the pattern to estudy all the medieval conflicts. So easy! well done! How I confused I was, now I realize that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.77.128.142 (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Introduction and why Christianity and Islam must be emphasized
The reason why this period is labelled the RECONQUISTA is precisely because of the re-conquest of the Iberian Peninsula by Christian rule from Islamic rule during this period. That is why it is necessary to indicate in the introduction that the Visigothic kingdom was a Christian kingdom and that the Umayyad empire that conquered it was Islamic and that the Asturian regime was Christian. The return of Christian rule by force of arms is the central fact. (It happened over approximately 770 years, not 781.) Provocateur (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In this topic as in other wikipedia articles, cooperation and helpful edits are appreciated. I have gone through your latest edits in here and other topic-related ones, and they don't come across as cooperative. They haven´t added detail, accuracy, nor (never) verifiability, in fact they have often done the opposite. It's a headache to frequently revert your POV oriented edits in articles I care&mdash;irrelevant adjectives, mistaken dates, sweeping statements, etc. Contribute to the wikipedia taking as much boring work and time as other good editors do.
 * The dates were talked before, and it was decided to add 711. In fact, nothing points to a different period starting in 718 or 722, as opposed to the previous years. Basically it's about the period of Muslim ruled kingdoms in the Iberian peninsula. However, a note on traditional historiography has been added. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting. You haven´t added verifiability, and shouting won't make your point more reasonable. As I told, this all has been discussed before and you were involved in that conversation. However, I'm going to quickly refresh some points so that you can integrate something of it and update your history knowledge:
 * The main and only contemporary chronicler of the time, the Christian chronicler from Cordova or Toledo, doesn´t say anything "big" enough happened in 718 or 722, in fact he doesn´t even mention it.
 * There is no certitude as to the religious nature of Asturias during this time, and no direct witness. Wamba was fighting the Astures in 673.
 * There is no certitude as to the religion of the Berbers-Arabs. Berbers were superficially Islamized and some weren´t even practising Islam.
 * The warriors coming under the banner of the Umayyads are called Sarracens or Moors at this point for their geographic origin. Others call them Ismaelites, and hold them as heretic brand of Christianity.
 * Other Christian kingdoms and the pope don't see any kingdom in Asturias up to Alfonso II (circa 800).
 * On the period, the first northern Iberian sources of some historic content are late 9th century chronicles, with clear propaganda/legitimation purposes and fraught with inherent contradictions.
 * 21st century historiography is aware of this, and generally accepts Reconquista for a drive that was happening at the end of the 11th century, that is certain, and Christian kingdom officials looked back to find ideological support for their actions, that is also certain.
 * There is no return of anything, get over it.
 * 850 events in Ordoño's kingdom and earlier archaeological findings in Asturias reveal that paganism was the religion of some at least, not to say the Basques, who are called wizards (magi) and their paganism is attested up to centuries later.
 * Britannica is no Bible or Coran, as you prefer, especially the 1905 one, it's updating all the time. If we were to believe some "serious" books of the 20th century, unchallenged, we would have a Clavijo battle that never happened and a miraculous Santiago talking to the soldiers.
 * Word "Christian" is repeated more than 60 times in this article, one that revolves on territorial expansion of some kingdoms over others, and not religious discussions.
 * You can contribute with verified or accurate info, POV tweaks will be immediately removed. Thanks for not adding dogmatic and exclusive views. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Reconquista" in this context is a traditional historical label for a historical periodization applied by historians in retrospect, just like "Middle Ages" or "Iron Age". What people of the time say or thought is irrelevant.


 * But there's no use discussing this issue with somebody who keeps replacing "approximately 770 years" with the much less accurate "approximately 781 years", which would mean a starting date in 711 - the year Islamic forces began their conquest of the Christian Visigothic kingdom, a conquest that was completed in 718. But in the very next paragraph, the introduction explains that historians traditionally use the battle of Covadonga (718 or 722) to mark the beginning of the period. 1492 - 718 = 774 years and 1492 - 722 (the more usual date given for Covadonga) = 770 years.  Either you are totally hopeless at arithmetic or you want to mislead. This is the only place I have read of the Christian reconquest of Iberia starting with the first Islamic invasion in 711. Provocateur (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Grammar and sentence on Portugal section

 * I wonder what part of my explanation you don´t understand. You may rephrase it for a clearer wording, but the whole sentence you added is incorrect. Please do stick to constructive editing. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well done User:84.23.203.106! Thanks for adding edit war and tediousness to the wikipedia. Any native speaker out there? Intervention is appreciated. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the "Kingdom of Portugal" section? Which sentence or sentences are you concerned about?CorinneSD (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an improvement, thanks! I was thinking by now we were doomed to mediocre editing. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

idea of "Reconquista" as post-fact 'propaganda'
Although it is implied at the end of the article ("The word Reconquista itself should be regarded as an explanation for a long unplanned historical shift or even as Christian propaganda by the new reigning houses to justify their rule as heirdom") the article should note quite early on that the whole idea of a "Reconquista" is in fact a term/idea constructed long after it ended.

Prof. Joseph Callaghan of Fordham University writes about this in his book Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain from 2003. A short review of the book by Ana Echevarria, Assistant Lecturer inHistory, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, concludes this(link here)

"Christian propaganda depicting the ‘Reconquista’ as a war to eject the Muslims from territories rightfully owned by Christians (dealt with in O'Callaghan's first chapter, ‘The Reconquest: Evolution of an Idea’) has been idealised in Spain, both as part of the origins of the nation, and because of the traditional alignment in the modern Roman Catholic church. Despite some challenges in the last thirty years, the word 'Reconquest' is still used generally, with the public continuing to use the term in common conversation. It is no surprise that Hispanists such as O’Callaghan himself, J. Hillgarth, P. Linehan, the late D. Lomax and A. MacKay have all discussed at great length the convenience (or otherwise) of using this concept for the history of medieval Spain."

I believe the article should reflect this more clearly. Anyone agree? Regards Osli73 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. However I do not think the name of the article should be changed. Further explanation of the ideological meaning of Reconquista should be added though. By the way, this is not just a Spanish phenomenon, but also a Portuguese one. The Ogre 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the name of the article should remain unchanged and the description of the "reconquista" doesn't have to be changed. The article just needs to say in the beginning that the idea of a "reconquista" is a ideological construction. It could also be interesting to explain why this was done (if anyone has any information on that). Cheers Osli73 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What nonsense! What happened? The Christians reconquered the land from the Muslims. There is no better name for this than the Reconquista. As for naming something after the fact, try "the Stone Age", "the Age of Exploration", "the Industrial Revolution". Provocateur (talk)

I agree as well. Whether there was a "conquista" in the first place is itself controversial. The Muslims occupied the peninsula in only a few years, with (apparently) the enthusiasm of those desiring to be free of the Visigoths. Expelling them took eight centuries. Who was more popular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe (talk • contribs) 21:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The Spanish article on reconquista (es.wikipidia.org)
It seems to me far more balanced and nuanced than this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixing the Map
I cross-posted this at the Wikimedia page. I work as a tutor and teacher and was searching for information and graphics on the Spanish Reconquista to share with my students. I thought the animated map was spectacularly well-suited for my purposes, until double-checked the "Talk" and "Discussion" page and found out how incredibly wrong it is. What's worse, the map has been known to be false for years now (the earliest comment I've seen criticizing the map's inaccuracies dates back to 2007), yet today it is included in 11 articles on the English-language Wikipedia alone, and an additional 116 Wikipedia articles in other languages.

There was apparently a proposal several years ago to outright, but that was voted down (apparently, false and misleading content can still be educational). I would propose to fix the map, but given that I did not make it, do not know who did, and do not possess the technical skills or historical knowledge to do so with any accuracy, I'm not sure how this would work. In lieu of that, I would suggest an interim solution of attaching a disclaimer or warning to the image, clearly indicating that the map has notable and known issues with historical accuracy. This strikes me as the best and most direct way of ensuring that others in my position don't assume the image is factual, while also drawing the attention of other editors to the image's need for a fix. However, I'm not sure if such a WP template actually exist, or how one might be added to the image. PublicolaMinor (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Where's Aragon?
IMHO Aragon Kingdom should appear in the list... Alfonso the Battler, King of Navarre and Aragon should appear too, please note his (failed) effort to join all the northern kingdoms under one ruler. It wasn't possible again until Fernando II of Aragon & Isabel of Castille. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.127.183 (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Intro Gibberish
The first sentence of the introduction currently reads "The Reconquista ("reconquest")[a] is a period of approximately 781 years in the history of the Iberian Peninsula, the period of the Portuguese and Spanish colonial empires which followed."

Anyone care to try to translate this to actual English?65.209.62.115 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * . It was caused by a vandalic edition a month ago. I didn't notice it until I saw your comment here. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 14:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)