Talk:Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre

Inappropiate map
The map shows the basque-speaking lands, which is not the XVI Century Kingdom of Navarre, mistaking (on purpose?) Navarre and Basque Lands. --80.174.3.7 (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre → Annexation of Upper Navarre – Term used to describe the part of the Kingdom of Navarre on the Iberian peninsula 88.26.68.136 (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article is about the military conquest (not annexation) of that part of Navarre which lay south of the Pyrenees, i.e. in Iberia; so there's nothing wrong and everything right about the current title. Srnec (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2012
I was expecting that in 2012 some events would be held, either by those who support the Spanishness of the Foral Community of Navarre or by Basque independentists who consider Amaiur some kind of Basque battle of Kosovo Polje. But I heard almost nothing about it. Some books were published, Amaiur was used as the name of a political party, but there was no debate AFAIK. Could somebody add a section on what happened and why? --Error (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)t

The Catholic and the Most Christian
Well... this is somewhat baffling if you get to read the whole article. It is not a futile reference, but a very interesting / relevant one. The kings were engaged in an ideological / diplomatic dispute to get the Church's favour and gain the authority to represent Christianity in their worldly political pursuits, while disenfranchising the opposite parties in the middle of Christianity's western European crisis. That struggle left an imprint in their own names. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem that interesting? And even if it is interesting, it is not at all clear from the original phrasing why the titles are being called to such prominence.  Especially since it's usually Ferdinand & Isabella who are closely identified with "the Catholic" moniker; people don't usually refer to Charles V as "Charles the Catholic", and I'm not sure Francis is referred to as "Francis the Most Christian" that often.  Courtly forms of address, sure, but that's not a big deal, anymore than random European monarchs claiming to be King of Jerusalem was relevant.  Anyway, as you say, this issue is already discussed elsewhere in the article, in the section on the lobbying of Pope Julius II to issue a bull endorsing the conquest.  If somehow the lobbying involved titles as well, then I guess that can be added, preferably to the section on the papal lobbying rather than the treaty signing?  I'd be surprised if that was so, though, I'd imagine that to be a separate issue.
 * Also, even if the titles are worth ruminating on, Funnyhat is correct that the phrasing is off - "was signed" is past tense, "in which Charles agrees" is present tense, the tenses don't agree.  SnowFire (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, what certain historiography has chosen to emphasize during the 20th century is one thing, and what their naming was in their contemporary practice is another. Charles repeatedly uses the moniker the "Catholic" in these treaties, and so does Francis ("The Most Christian", in French or Latin, off the top of my head). It is verified here. These are not minor elements to understand what the politics of the period was about and should stay there. On the tense, I agree. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Francis was the Most Christian King as King of France. Charles and his mother were described as the Catholic King and Queen at their proclamation. If sources do not mention this in the context of the Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre, however, neither should we. Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Surtsicna for the comprehensive approach and the links. The titles were used in the treaties relevant to this article and this context, where the Church of Rome determined for the last time in Europe the authority for one kingdom to conquest another. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, but who says that? Who makes that connection? The titles were used in all their treaties. Surtsicna (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ??? That is what they named themselves, it is in the primary sources and the reference provided. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah but there's tons of crap in primary sources that simply isn't relevant - wasn't relevant at the time, isn't considered relevant now. This goes double for imperious monarchs who piled a zillion titles onto their names. I think the example I gave of King of Jerusalem is instructive - even at the time, everybody knew that these monarchs weren't REALLY kings of Jerusalem, and that it was more an aspirational title. It isn't relevant to bring up in 99% of situations. In the same way, "Most Christian Majesty" is in general just Not That Important, and if it *was* important, than a secondary source should say so.

Perhaps an example would help: in Revolt_of_the_Barretinas (which I wrote), it includes: "Barcelona's loyalty was rewarded by the government by allowing Barcelona's councilors to keep their hats on while in the presence of the king, and the Diputació was granted the titles of "Most Illustrious" and "Most Faithful." These symbolic gestures were considered quite significant at the time.[22]" And the reference shows the book with the secondary source that said yes, these privileges were considered a Big Deal and actually helped placate the relevant nobles, even if they read as irrelevant to modern eyes.

Basically, is there an equivalent book that says why these titles are meaningful, especially meaningful in context of the signing of the treaty? e.g. "King Francis signed the document as 'Most Christian Majesty.' According to historian Pierre MadeUpName, this impressed the Navarrese greatly and helped cement the treaty in the eyes  of the local clergy." Alternatively, if this kind of source doesn't exist, just leave it out as not relevant. Otherwise EVERYTHING Francis did could potentially have all his many titles tagged along with it. SnowFire (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can double-check it on the secondary source Monreal/Jimeno. There is no explanation needed as to why they used these titles, that I find it a bit of an overzeal. They were using these titles in the treaties and this context, for all the obvious reasons in the period's politics as stated in the article. Anyway, will take a look at the book and will confirm. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not obvious. Check out Style_of_the_British_sovereign.  That's a lot of titles, including King of France & King of Jerusalem & famously, ludicrously, "Defender of the Faith" which Henry VIII kept even after falling out with the Pope.  It'd be jarring when describing a treaty to pick one title and prominently display it without explaining why (e.g. if the context is some theological dispute, perhaps bringing up the King of England's place as head of the Church of England is relevant then).  Note that in Henry_VIII_of_England, apparently Julius offered the "Most Christian Majesty" title to Henry VIII as well, handing it out like candy.  Lots of kings can be the most Christian it seems?  SnowFire (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The dispute cannot be more clear, who is the most Christian, and therefore worthy of worldly advantages, they are using them in the treaties. If secondary source confirms, that is what applies. We are talking about this case, and not other circumstances. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not hold it as sth exclusive of the French king, just that they liked to style themselves with those titles, so enhancing their status in the face of Church. And Julius may have given them at convenience, according to your link/comment. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be an issue of original research, or rather synthesis. Does any secondary source (on which Wikipedia is based) about the Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre pay any attention to these titles of Francis and Charles? It's that simple - yes or no? Surtsicna (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is in the primary source provided by the secondary source (Monreal/Jimeno). Saying that the referred primary source cites them (time and again, sometimes not even citing the proper name, but just the moniker; chapter 16 of the treaty, page 116 Monreal/Jimeno) in a certain manner relevant to the events is nothing of OR, the information is accurate and relevant. I can add it in the footnotes if that settle matters. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Absorbed by France
I would not like to entangle on the names for this historic event. It is still very clear that France and Navarre were in personal union, remaining apart as kingdoms, and only after King Louis' military intervention in Béarn (1620) did he enforce his terms, severely curtailing the sovereignty of both Navarre and Bearn and de facto attaching them to France. There was nothing automatic. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Article title
I reverted your move, largely because Lower Navarre really was a separate kingdom that would continue around. Sure, most of the time it was effectively part of France - after Henry IV of France combined the thrones, basically - but there's still a solid 50-60 years of independence as a client state / ally of France after the Spanish take Upper Navarre. That's my take, basically. I'll agree that "Spanish" probably isn't strictly necessary, but it helps for clarity regardless IMO (i.e. making sure there's no doubt it's about the period where Navarre was allied with Al-Andalus). SnowFire (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Lower Navarre continued to exist as an independent kingdom for another century at least with a very active diplomatic activity engaged in European political issues, for example providing shelter to Calvin, although reluctantly so. Its leeway was pretty short. Remember Shakespeare's "Navarre shall be the wonder of the world".


 * The title is descriptive and extends since the Castilian-Aragonese invasion by Ferdinand the "Catholic" to Charles V's reign (1528). Iñaki LL (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Rating
Thanks for revising the rating by means of ORES to C. However, it still shows as Start class despite the criteria review. The rating of the article has been a mystery so far, take for instance "Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met" still in place (??). As for the sources, except for Bustillo Kastresana, Joxerra (2012), very informative and meriting anyway total credit, all belong in an academic background, author and/or publisher. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think C is still a very low assesment for this article. ORES says it's structural quality is FA, so a B or even GA could be fair, noticing that the articles needs copyediting and, maybe, some rereferences could be in discussion. -Theklan (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this input. I think one of the latest objections was that some paragraphs were lacking in references, that is fair enough, I may look into that. The other may be references, which in the EN WP requires all or almost all academic references, and that may be a stumbling block to get an FA article. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not suggesting this article should be featured without a vote and more work, but I don't thing it's a C-class article. -Theklan (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Copy edit tag
Hi. I put the copy edit tag on because when going through the article to assess it it struck me as a really good article but with a number of areas which could do with a copy edit. I was too busy at the time to simply do them - it's a big article - so I tagged it. This means that someone from GOCE, possibly me, will be along before too long to go through it. If you disagree about the article needing a copy edit, or have objections in principle to GOCE's work simply remove the tag and it will drop off their list. It was not meant to slight the article - which, I repeat, I was impressed by - but it is almost inevitable that a busy article with a number of contributers will end up needing a copy edit. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gog the Mild, it is fine. I was thinking whether it was about adding further references on unsupported excerpts. I will be pleased if it is copy-edited for grammar or style. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Iñaki LL and other editors. I have started to copy edit. If anyone has any objections to any of my edits, feels that I have altered an intended meaning, or doesn't understand why I have made a change, please feel free to flag it up here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

A query
The caption for the infobox image ends "In pink, the remaining Kingdom of Navarre which survived until Henry IV of France." Henry IV died in 1610. The lead and the text say that the Kingdom of Navarre survived until 1620. Is one of these wrong? In any case, it would be good if the article were consistent. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You are right, there are contradicting pieces of information. In fact the sovereign kingdom lasted up to 1620, under Louis XIII of France, II of Navarre. I edited that. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Good. I'm glad that I was helpful. I will flag up any more queries I come across as I continue the copy edit. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Another
"The Church appears to have approved of the enslavement of the subdued Navarrese population." Were the population literally enslaved? (It seems unlikely.) Or would a word such as 'subjugation' be more appropriate? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously, no one was enslaved as such an institution did not exist in Western Europe at that time. Str1977 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Article title, round 2
I reverted your move. You're conflating the political entity (Spain) with the geographic one (Iberia).

This war was between "Spain" (well, proto-Spain in the Castile-Aragon union) and Navarre. Calling it the conquest of Spanish Navarre is jumping ahead in history to after Upper Navarre is part of Spain and is really confusing - it'd be like calling the Seven Years War / French & Indian War the "Conquest of British Canada." It wasn't British YET, it was part of New France during the conflict. I could maybe see an argument for "Spanish conquest of Upper Navarre" but most readers won't know what Upper Navarre was/is, so this term is probably better, and also nicely separates out the parts of Navarre that Spain conquered and the parts that stayed independent. SnowFire (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know it isn't ideal and I still prefer "Spanish conquest of Navarre" - that is what was attempted and that is what largely happened. I'd also be fine with "Spanish conquest of Upper Navarre". You say, people won't know what "Upper Navarre" is - they won't know what "Iberian Navarre is either because that territory was never called by that name.
 * "Iberian" is a misnomer that noone used until quite recencently. "Iberia" is not a geographic term (though the term "Iberian peninsula" exists). Iberia is an old kingdom in the Caucasus - it never was the name of Spain (or proto-Spain, as you call it). Sure, the name "Spain/Spanish" can be confusing as it today refers to the kingdom without Portugal but back then it referred to the whole peninsula. If you speak of proto-Spain, remember that the kingdom only became Spain with the union with Portugal. Navarre frankly didn't add much. Str1977 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Spanish conquest of Navarre" makes it sound like all of Navarre was conquered, which isn't true, so that's not a feasible option in my opinion.
 * I don't think there's any risk of confusion on Iberia - the Caucuses-Iberia is obscure and anybody who does know about it also knows from context which Iberia is really meant by the "Spanish" part of the title.  (Note that Iberia redirects to the Iberian Peninsula.)  So basically I disagree here, Iberia is a geographic term, and wikt:Iberia backs me up on this, with definition 1 being "The region of Europe south of the Pyrenees."  I'm also certainly not claiming that Iberia was "the name of Spain" - quite the reverse, I'm claiming there's a distinction here.
 * I'll have to double-check, but as for when "Spain" happened, my recollection is that Charles I of Spain / Charles V did indeed mint coins saying he was rex hispania / King of Spain. So "Spain" is not very far in the future, just ~7 or so years away and still a relevant part of this period (and certainly long before the Iberian Union with Portugal). SnowFire (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Charles V did indeed mint coins saying he was rex hispania". It goes both ways Sancho III of Navarre was referred as Rex hispaniarum, Rex hispanorum regum and as Rex Ibericus already in the 11th century. :P. I have no stance here, but, out of curiosity, which is the problem with the rather straightforward "Conquest of Upper Navarre", anyways?--Asqueladd (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Both with Charles and Sancho, "Hispania" constitutes a claim to hegemony in the entire Spanish peninsula.
 * SnowFire, are you using Wiktionary as a source? It is just as unusable as Wikipedia itself. And while the article has an example of that usage, it unsurprisingly dates to 2006.
 * "Iberian peninsula" is a common term, Iberia however is a recent misnomer, deriving from the confusion that pre-union the term "Spain" included Portugal without making that country part of modern Spain.
 * Regardless, how about we actually institute the move to "Spanish conquest of Upper Navarre". Str1977 (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not 'coin' the name of the article myself, but that is accurate and identifiable. Left aside etymological considerations, everybody identifies nowadays Iberian with the Iberian peninsula (Iberian Plateau, etc.) unless we go back to the early medieval period or sooner.
 * Upper Navarre could work for me, but I am not sure it was by then in use (Ultrapuertos / Deça-ports was used for Lower Navarre, that is certain), and only historians may know what it refers to among English-language readers. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Str1977: I just used Wiktionary as a quick example of something that is "common knowledge". Sorry, but your experience is unique on this one; look at |Iberian_Peninsula the pageview stats of Caucuses - Iberia vs. Iberian Peninsula. Nobody but history buffs even knows about the historical kingdom, let alone would misinterpret "Iberian" in a phrase that already has "Spanish" and "Navarre" in it. Another example if you want one. Also, there is no such thing as a "misnomer"; if you accept that people use a term, then people use the term, even if it's "wrong".

I am not totally opposed to "Spanish conquest of Upper Navarre" but as Iñaki LL says, that term is rare and possibly a little anachronistic - I get the impression that the borders of Upper Navarre were exactly what Spain conquered. Google Scholar turns up very few relevant results - a few articles mentioning Henry IV & Jeanne d'Albret wanting to reconquer Upper Navarre, and that's it. Even if the term is legit, it is obscure; most English readers will have no idea what it means. SnowFire (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Any term is anachronistic as that part conquered by "Spain" (Aragon-Castille) is actually defined by being conquered by Spain. However, if I get this correctly the Upper-Lower distinction was coined after the partial conquest divided that land. Str1977 (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Str1977, if you don't like the title of the page, please file a WP:RM - there's been enough undiscussed moves that there should be a full discussion. Anyway, as per above, "Iberian" as a term to describe the Iberian peninsula is not controversial or unusual, and you seem to be the only person who believes there's any risk of confusion with Caucuses Iberia and thus Iberian should be avoided.  So even if the article is moved to "Spanish conquest of Upper Navarre" (which is an acceptable name, yes), there would need to be some explanation of what the heck Upper Navarre even is in the article, which will probably involve mentioning the Iberian Peninsula.  SnowFire (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This was hardly an undiscussed move (see above). No one objected to the term.
 * I might be the only person on WP to object to the misuse of the term Iberia for a region that was never called "Iberia" (not "Iberian peninsula") but there is a world outside. Str1977 (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this 2nd round is not adding new elements to the debate. The geographic term is "Iberian peninsula" hence Iberian Navarre. "Upper Navarre" is not a commonly known name in English. As an alternative Peninsular could also work (cf. Peninsular War). In the Basque context and language, this distinction is also used sometimes (peninsular/continental). However, I do not think we are fixing anything worth a change. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Str1977: As I already said above, I believe the current title is more clear for most English-language readers who won't know what Upper Navarre is. "Upper Navarre" is at least not inaccurate / misleading like some of your earlier moves, but I think it's a slightly worse title.  If you feel strongly about it, just file a requested move with the link I provided before, that's the Wikipedia process for such discussions, it's easy and takes just a minute.  SnowFire (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong Link
"a combination of Gipuzkoan militias supported by 1,000 landsknecht engaged the Franco-Navarrese at the fortress of Urantzu in the celebrated Battle of San Marcial."...the link to the Battle of San Marcial leads to the battle of 1813 SoarHighBeFree (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks. Feel free to make such minor, non-controversial edits yourself though - it's a wiki!  SnowFire (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Catherine I of Navarre.jpg