Talk:Reconquista

Maybe add an Infobox?

Perhaps it would be good to add a Template:Infobox military conflict? To get a overview over the belligerents, results and similar. GusGusBrus (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The current consensus leans against it. The topic is a contested concept in historiography, althought lately the lead section has been doing a poor job at accounting for that feature. Go figure why an infobox may be a bad idea.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The Reconquista was not a war, it was a period. It would be very confusing and difficult to do since there were many times where Christians were allied with Muslims and there were many wars between Christians or Muslims, see Reconquista#Infighting for more info. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the ongoing edit war over use of the word "successful" applied to Christian armies fighting in the so-called "Reconquista"

I've said this before, more than once, but the word Reconquista has only been used since the beginning of the 19th century, and since the beginning of the 21st century historians have generally avoided its use, except with "scare quotes".

Teresa Tinsley expresses this very well in her essay, "Reframing 'Reconquista'. Hernando de Baeza's Take on the Conquest of Granada":

The idea of a medieval history of Iberia as the progressive 'reconquering' of land unjustly occupied by Islamic invaders has been a surprisingly tenacious paradigm, although it is only since the beginning of the nineteenth century that the word 'Reconquista' began to be used and only since the twenty-first century that historians, acknowledging its inherent bias, have tended to avoid the term except in inverted commas. It is generally accepted that the ideas we have come to call 'Reconquista' had their roots in early Asturian and Leonese chronicles which were taken up and developed by successive Castilian monarchs and their supporters. Recent discussion of the concept has taken one of two main directions. On the one hand, medievalists have discussed the extent to which the idea of 'Reconquista' was 'real' at the time, in the sense of a shared and constant ideology driving forward military action against al-Andalus. On a different but related tack, scholars have critiqued the development and (mis)use of the term in nationalist historiography and discussed the distortions it has engendered.

And as the abstract of her chapter in A Plural Peninsula: Studies in Honour of Professor Simon Barton says:

The Catholic Monarchs proclaimed the 1492 conquest of Granada as the culmination of an 800-year struggle against the Muslims. Yet, the conquest of Muslim territory was not always predominant in Christian strategic thinking, as relations between the faith groups were not consistently hostile and political alliances were commonplace. The narrative of the 'fall and redemption' of Spain, with its roots in ideologically-driven 'Gothic' histories designed to justify Castilian supremacy in a divine mission to combat Islam, became embedded in historiography from the mid-16th century onwards, and was later re-utilised in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by national-Catholic historians. It can therefore appear that the idea of an exclusive Christianity triumphing against Islam and repressing Jewish elements in its heritage was uncontested and inevitable.

The idea that the so-called Reconquista was a continuous campaign of Christian armies opposed to Muslim armies over the course of eight centuries, culminating in a Christian "victory" betrays an ignorance of the actual history, in which there were many and various alliances between Christians and Muslims fighting against Christian or Muslim forces. Do editors really not know that El Cid, for example, fought with both Christian and Muslim armies? Carlstak (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant to this dispute. The Reconquista, when refering to the series of military campaigns of the Christian kingdoms against the Muslim powers, as done in the lead sentence, was successful. The Christian Kingdoms were victorious, the Muslim powers got beaten and conquered, the Iberian Peninsula became Christian again. That is simply a fact. So why shouldn't this be mentioned in the lead sentence?

How is the fact that historians use the term Reconquista more carefully nowadays, that it wasn't a single continuous campaign or that there were at times Christian and Muslim fighters on both sides relevant to this? Nobody is denying that. Bellerophon451 (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Calling the many campaigns "successful", some of which were not, implies that there was an organized, sustained, and general campaign by Christians to "reconquer" the peninsula when such a concept didn't even exist. This narrative is a myth—a crude and simplistic ideology seized on by National Catholic propagandists during Franco's reign of terror and now by Islamophobes who stand against a multicultural society and call for a "new Reconquista" to drive the Muslim "occupiers" from Iberia. Carlstak (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Part of the spat is the use of "...was/were a series of military campaigns..." IMO the usual word to use in such situations is the singular 'was' (a/one series), but in this case there were many series so the plural 'were' should be used. The singular and plural of 'series' is spelt the same, which adds potential confusion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I get your point, but my point is that there was no actual Reconquista, the existence of which has been a subject of dispute here for years. It doesn't mean that we can't have an article about the antiquated concept. Maybe eventually historical laggards will catch up to modern historiography. Carlstak (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Carlstak is correct. إيان (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not familiar with all the detail, or the history of this article, which might be an advantage. Was there anything unique to this lengthy period of time that allows us to treat it as one subject? If there is, how else could it be described? At first sight it does look as though there was a steady decline in the Moorish population, whther that was planned or not. Also, there are other poorly named events in history that are used, even if the name gives a wrong impression of what actually happened. Why can't we just carry on using the term reconquista for this period even though it might give a wrong impression? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

We have this article about the antiquated concept called "Reconquista", and we should have it, but it should reflect current scholarly consensus. In previous discussions (now archived) on this talk page, there were howls of protest when إيان rewrote the lede of the article, describing "Reconquista" as an historiographical construction, notwithstanding the fact that the terminology accurately reflects that consensus. Some editors seem to think that this is some sort of heretical neologism, ignoring or unaware that we have works like Martín Ríos Saloma's La Reconquista. Una construcción historiográfica (siglos XVI–XIV) (2011).

Tinsley refers to:

...what we might call the hinge moment in the development of the ‘Reconquista’ imaginary—the conquest of Granada in 1492—the moment when, as an ideology, it stopped framing immediate lived reality and functioning as a call to arms, and was reduced to providing a particular identity-defining understanding of the past.

...the key elements of 'Reconquista' ideology—the 'othering' of Muslims as enemies of the faith, concepts of recovery and redemption, and the special role of the monarchs in completing a divinely-ordained mission...

As John Tolan of Université de Nantes says: "'Reconquista' like 'feudalism', will no doubt continue to spark debate, indeed more so, since 'feudalism' is of interest primarily to academic medievalists and economic historians, while the reconquista is still seen by many Spaniards as a vital formative element of their culture."

It's not just Spanish traditionalists who hold that view, as the revision history of this page will show. I don't want to reiterate every single point that I've already made in prior discussion. If you want to have a better understanding of the debate here, look in Archive 2. Frankly, I think many of the former participants are bored with it, or have said their piece and moved on. Carlstak (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What needs to happen is a split into an article about the medieval military history of Iberia (where the bulk of the current content of this article will go) and an article about the historiographical narrative of Reconquista. I might work on this in the future. إيان (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

An excellent idea. Carlstak (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a solid roadmap.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, i don't think it implies that, that sounds like your personal opinion. Again, the Reconquista, when refering to the series of military campaigns of the Christian kingdoms against the Muslim powers, as done in the lead, was successful. Again, that's simply a fact, so it should be included in the lead sentence. The alleged implications of using successful are solely your personal interpretations, which are of no relevance to Wikipedia.

On another note, the word successful was used for over five months since March, until the IP removed it. The IP got reverted, so there is obviously no consensus for this change. So you and the IP need to gain consensus for this change, which you haven't. There is an ongoing discussion, until then the pre-edit war wording should be used, see WP:CON and WP:QUO. Why aren't you following these guidelines and rules? And no, the use of successful has not been discussed before, so why are you claiming that in your latest edit summary? Bellerophon451 (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You say "sounds like your personal opinion" and "solely your personal interpretations" about my comments here. I've produced multiple sources for my assertions, yet all you've offered is the pronouncement "that's simply a fact" as if you are an authority not to be questioned, and you haven't cited a single source to support your claims. Rather disingenuous, I'd say, and a bit comical, really. Apparently you can't be bothered to even try to make a case. Carlstak (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources you provided do not support your argument. You claim: "Calling the many campaigns "successful", some of which were not, implies that there was an organized, sustained, and general campaign by Christians to "reconquer" the peninsula when such a concept didn't even exist.". Where do your sources say that or support that? Which of your sources speak of the implications of using the word successful? I don't think any, so this assertion does in fact sounds like your personal opinion to me.

The Reconquista, when refering to the series of military campaigns of the Christian kingdoms against the Muslim states, as done in the lead and throughout the article, culminated in the defeat of the last Muslim state in 1492 and subsequent Spanish Christian rule over the entirety of Spain. So it was successful. Basic common sense. What part of that do you disagree with and what part needs sourcing? Bellerophon451 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Basic common sense should tell you that if, as I and others, including mainstream scholars, maintain that there was no actual "Reconquista" in the sense you want to use it, then it follows that it couldn't possibly be "successful", according to our line of thought. Carlstak (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hold on there, you're taking as a given that newer revisionist scholarship should be the only POV. WP:NPOV clearly establishes that the other POVs must also be treated. Andre🚐 21:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I was explaining to this editor why I take the position he argues against. Also, your idea that "revisionist" is bad is misguided. Scholars, and even whole schools of scholarship, often revise their positions according to the unearthing of new evidence revealed by research, or even by the publishing of one paper that dismantles long-held ideas, just as Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" revolutionized physics. Carlstak (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not say revisionist was bad at all, but Wikipedia by its nature will likely skew a bit more conservative with established narratives, while revisionism is a discussed balanced alternative position. Andre🚐 21:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• So, I don't really care whether it says "successful" but I definitely don't agree with the revisionist idea that there was no Reconquista. There are plenty of recent sources that seem to say there was. Andre🚐 18:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It is disheartening seeing such resistance and clinging to the current outdated introduction (which I don't think was the result of any consensus) based on nothing rather when confronted by serious sources questioning the concept. Needless to say, given the amount of previous (scholar-sources-based) talk page talk (available for everyone to read), the "successful" qualifier ruckus is just the tip of the iceberg and unlikely to find may users wanting to invest their time in settling that only issue.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm really not so sure what you mean. I just added this source. [1] a 700-year military and cultural campaign against the Moorish Caliphates of Southern Iberia that culminated in the joint reign of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile as Reyes Católicos. Is there something the matter with the source or that sentence? Andre🚐 20:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Other than that bit actually being presented as a narrative helping to foster new narratives in the early modern period and that the source is not particularly central to the topic, yes, wording ("Moorish Caliphates") is not wholly accurate either (but then again, if it is presented as a narrative, it may not matter after all 🤡)--Asqueladd (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the source calls that a historical series events that was used as a narrative to justify New World colonization. But I am sure I can find a source that is both central to the topic and specific to replace it with. Would that suffice? Andre🚐 20:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That the narrative of a 'Reconquista' is a thoroughly debunked historiographic invention of 19th century elaborated under Franco is not WP:FRINGE revisionist history but rather reflects scholarly consensus. Do those who think otherwise even know the names of any of the relevant experts on Iberian history? Show us you've done your homework before spamming the discussion. إيان (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Carlstak (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Your tone is not appropriate; I am not spamming the discussion. I don't need to prove my credentials because I've never claimed any. Your POV must be balanced with the standard academic works that are reliable, and a significant minority POV may exist, but it is not the only POV. If you want to claim that the Reconquista not being a real thing is clearly academic consensus, you need to demonstrate that with sources. Many many reliable sources refer to it as a thing, so I do not agree, and I don't need to "name relevant experts" that you think are the right ones to have a valid opinion worth discussing here. Here are a few randomly selected reliable sources on a cursory Jstor search. the battle of Covadonga has been understood as the first Christian victory in the eight-century Reconquista process.[2] El Cid was a quasi-mystical figure... whose role as an active agent of the Christian Reconquista[3] Ferdinand of Aragon captured the last Muslim kingdom of Granada, thus ending the Reconquista [4] As for 'Reconquista', if we understand it not as the erratic circumstantial conquest of Moorish land led by an individual or a group of individuals on behalf of a restricted Christian community, but as a concerted and conscious programme of restoration of Christian sovereignty over Hispania,[5] Andre🚐 00:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Your first source, Roberto Marín Guzmán's "Crusade in Al-Andalus: The Eleventh Century Formation of The Reconquista as an Ideology" (1992), is very outdated scholarship at 32 years old—much work has been developed in historiography on the subject since then. It speaks of the "process" of "Reconquista", a common trope, albeit a rather misleadingly clinical one, in outdated literature on the subject.

Your second source, Simon Barton's "'El Cid, Cluny and the Medieval Spanish' Reconquista" (2011), although of more recent vintage, is more about El Cid than "Reconquista", and even admits: "During the past thirty-five years, however, the sceptics have returned to the fore. As the nationalist rhetoric of Christian Reconquista has fallen decidedly out of academic fashion so has the quasi-hagiographical approach to El Cid."

And your third source, Maria do Rosário Ferreira's "'Terra de Espanha': A Medieval Iberian Utopia" (2009), has its entire discussion of "Reconquista" predicated on the condition, which you quote, but left out the damning part: "As for 'Reconquista', if [emphasis mine] we understand it not as the erratic circumstantial conquest of Moorish land led by an individual or a group of individuals on behalf of a restricted Christian community, but as a concerted and conscious programme of restoration of Christian sovereignty over Hispania, undertaken in the name of the people that had been robbed of it..."

Obviously, not all modern scholars accept this precondition, which to my mind mind, reeks of a prejudicial approach to the historiography. If we accept this formulation (robbed?), shouldn't we also accept the formulation that the Arian Visigoths robbed the Hispano-Romans of their territories? And Ferreira even uses inverted commas in every mention of 'Reconquista', which is a sort of unacknowledged disclaimer in itself. I can't see that these sources actually support a modern scholarly understanding of the subject, much less your argument. Carlstak (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

1) While I agree 1992 is getting on in years, it's hardly an obsolete source. 2) Source is authoritative, in fact proves my point, your earlier source quoted in this discussion came from the "Studies in Honour of Professor Simon Barton." It clearly substantiates the idea of academic fashion and different interpretations in the field (read revisionism) and it is not for Wikipedia to gloss over or ignore this, since clearly it's an active question with some historians denying the reality of Reconquista, while other historians support it. 3) goes on to explain this in depth, the emphasis on "if," which is to say that it definitely supports the reality of the Reconquista as a historical event, as do all the sources I linked and the one I added to the article ([6]) which explains those historical events as important predicate for subsequent historiographical justifications. It explains the Reconquista as a complex interplay of political, cultural, and military factors. the use of the quotation marks (not inverted commas) is not in any way prejudicial. 4) I posted 4 sources (you ignored Elena Casey, Holly Sims) and one more in the article, but there are literally 300 pages of results on Jstor to go through. This was from the first page. I'm happy to do another page, but if you're going to hand-wave apparently good research it's pretty pointless, and we can agree to disagree. Andre🚐 02:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

To the contrary, you're doing the hand-waving here. I've demonstrated how inadequate these sources are —they don't do the job you want them to. You'd get laughed out of a symposium with these. Carlstak (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not presenting at a symposium. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect an undergrad history text. Not your cutting edge skeptical theories. Andre🚐 02:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

My "cutting edge skeptical theories"? This reassessment of "Reconquista" has been going on since the 1970s, at least. Again, as Simon Barton wrote in 2011, "During the past thirty-five years, however, the sceptics have returned to the fore. As the nationalist rhetoric of Christian Reconquista has fallen decidedly out of academic fashion..." Barton is a respected scholar by the way, I'm not putting him down. After all, Tinsley's essay that I cited was published in an edited volume called A Plural Peninsula: Studies in Honour of Professor Simon Barton (2024). Carlstak (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

PS: I was responding to your post above my comment, which should have been obvious to you, and which only mentioned the three, jammed all together. Carlstak (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It does not, look again, it has 4 quotations and 4 sources. Andre🚐 04:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Surely it can only be described as successful if removing all muslims from the penenisula was the aim, and aim that didn't change for 700 years. If that broad overall aim din't exist then it cannot be described as successful. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The goal was not to remove Muslims from the peninsula, it was a political, military, and cultural process. These lands changed hands in terms of the dominant powers. Christian reconquest of Muslim lands succeeded in Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Crete, Malta and Sicily. Charlemagne tried to invade Spain in 778 and captured Barcelona in 801. In 1212 Innocent III declared a Crusade against the Almohades. James I of Aragon captured Valencia in 1238. Historians consider it ended with the Christian Spanish monarchy. There are many events I didn't mention, but historians consider all of these events part of the Reconquista. Andre🚐 03:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Good lord, this is a gross oversimplification. Some historians think that. If you want to begin to understand what scholars of Iberian history have been discussing and arguing for decades, try reading Beyond the Reconquista: New Directions in the History of Medieval Iberia (711-1085) As Robert Portass says, even the defenders in this volume of some interpretations of "Reconquista" take issue with the paradigm. He continues: "...almost all Hispanists accept that the Reconquista is an inadequate conceptual tool" and "Attempts to rescue the idea, or at least decouple it from the unsavoury associations it acquired during and after the Spanish Civil War, are generally considered by experts to have been unsuccessful." Carlstak (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear: this conception of the "Reconquista" as a historiographic invention is not new, much less "cutting-edge". Even so long ago as 1993 Peter Linehan wrote of the "brokers of the past" who created the myth of reconquest. In chapter 4 of his book, History and the Historians of Medieval Spain, entitled "The Invention of the Reconquest", he refers to:

p. 102 The story of the battle of Covadonga, early Christian Europe's 'mother of all battles' fought in the remote spot in the mountains of Asturias where, according to venerable tradition, Pelayo and his tiny band of followers launched the Christian Reconquest of Spain.

p. 104 Thus in the 880s or thereabouts, at the very moment at which the myth of the Reconquest of Spain was invented, Spain's principal prelate was given a scripture lesson by his king...

These events the Chronicle of Alfonso III reports without fuss. But it was not its account of these, it was its account of Pelayo at Covadonga and its presentation of the myth according to which all the exertions of Pelayo's successors contributed to the Reconquest of what had been lost, and the assurance it provided that that reconquest was a religious undertaking, that would cause posterity constantly to refer to the Chronicle of Alfonso III.

p. 106 According to the Chronicle of Alfonso III, what motivated Pelayo—whether as leader of the Goths or of the Asturians—was concern for 'the Lord's Church', Spain's salvation, and the restoration of the Visigothic regime.

And there you have it. Linehan explaining the genesis of "Reconquista" in 1993. It still stands. Carlstak (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

As you can see, what the Chronicle of Alfonso III says about Pelayo's motivation is hardly different from the line put forth by Franco's National Catholic propagandists. Carlstak (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not defending Franco, and I'm not claiming that "Reconquista" was not later used by Francoists in a propagandistic way. All I'm arguing is that the plain meaning of Reconquista, as it would be found in a standard history text, is not the same as what you're saying it is. I'm sure it was mythologized, and distorted, and used for those means. But it's also just a period of history, similar to the Crusades, where the Christians were attacking the Muslim kingdoms and eventually, they did conquer all of those kingdoms. Andre🚐 20:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say you were defending Franco. You're deflecting from what I was responding to, and misrepresenting what I've said. Above you referred to "newer revisionist scholarship" and said, "Wikipedia is supposed to reflect an undergrad history text. Not your cutting edge skeptical theories." I didn't give you "my" theories—I quoted an eminent historian who 31 years ago said that the "Reconquista" was an invention of "brokers of the past". You're clutching at straws, and please show us the WP policy or guideline that says "Wikipedia is supposed to reflect an undergrad history text." Carlstak (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

We're definitely talking past each other, that's for sure. I didn't say you accused me of defending Franco, and I apologize for even sounding like I implied you accused me of defending Franco. I don't even want to think about Franco at all. Franco is 100% irrelevant, you brought him up.

You have argued that the only valid historiography, or the clear majority opinion of RS, of the medieval interaction between Christianity and Islam in Iberia, to the extent of an overwhelming academic consensus that excludes any other interpretation, is that the Reconquista is a myth, and therefore the article needs a ground-up rewrite; I'm attacking this because a ton of alarm bells are going off about this proposed course of action. I'll have to get back to you on the specific Wikipedia policy that explains that the top-level overview article called Reconquista is not supposed to be Modern historiography of the Reconquista, but an accessible, general overview that reflects boring and straightforward historiography. This doesn't preclude significant revisionism but should discourage under WP:NPOV, the extent you are proposing, absent a more persuasive argument that this is indeed explicitly an academic consensus; you've certainly not furnished this level of argument.

The text you just quoted from Linehan that you are holding up as revisionist (I think anything called The Invention Of.. is probably presumed a revisionist article by default) references authentic story of the battle fought at Covadonga probably into the account of it retailed in the 910s by the two versions of the Chronicle known to us. So the supposed mythmaking happening in the 10th century! But the Reconquista doesn't end until 1492. At most, this simply says that anything from 700 to 900 is dubious in terms of the Reconquista being an overarching motivating ideology, and actually confirms that the subsequent 500 years HAD a Reconquista as its animating force at least in some capacity!

I'm very happy to accept that yours is probably the interpretation of most of the very progressive and hip historians, which probably correlates to those presenting research at symposia (versus, say, an actual textbook), maybe even the majority of current-day grad students, I don't know, you have to show that is the case with more extensive sources to obviate the "old" POV, as it hasn't been soundly discredited at all or really even touched, you've mostly confirmed it. I just don't see that it could possibly be the case that Reconquista, most of the time, refers to something other that lengthy military, cultural, and political process that culminated with the Catholic monarchs, which clearly happened, regardless of when the coinage originated, that's what it means in most RS. Anything to do with New World colonization, Franco or certainly any contemporary far-right figures is far out of scope to anything I'm mentioning. That is the secondary meaning that should be addressed as one of the major aspects and balanced.

As pertaining to Linehan, I stand corrected. The revisionist thesis dates to 1993 at least, wouldn't that also mean that the earlier source from 1993 that I presented, which you attacked, is fair game now? This still isn't a proof that we should treat the revisionism as the consensus. Andre🚐 23:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Marín Guzmán's "Crusade in Al-Andalus" isn't outdated because it's 32 years old so much as it's outdated because of the historiographical work that's been done since then that makes it out of step with present-day Hispanist consensus, which you misrepresent. The chapter of Linehan's 31-year-old book that I cite, which you also misrepresent, is not out of step with that consensus, and because of his scholarly eminence, it actually kicked off a general reassessment of the utility of "Reconquista" as a conceptual tool as Robert Portass said, and whom I quoted. Can you see the difference?

I don't think you've understood any of these sources, because if you had, you would understand that, yes, the ideas that over time developed into the framework of the notion of "Reconquista" have been around since the 10th century, but they weren't codified as Reconquista until the early 19th century, which is what our article is ostensibly about, but misrepresents.

That is why إيان's proposal to split this article into "an article about the medieval military history of Iberia (where the bulk of the current content of this article will go) and an article about the historiographical narrative of Reconquista" is such a good idea, because it should satisfy your fellow naysayers and even you with your nonsense about "progressive and hip historians". Carlstak (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You haven't provided a source for the 19th century. And instead of continuing to question whether I've understood things you can simply say you don't agree with my interpretation. That is what Wikipedia calls for as far as collegiality, respect and good faith. If you want to rewrite the article you'll have to gain a consensus to do that and provide sources for your claims. Explicit sources for your claims about academic consensus and explicit sources for the 19th century idea. Because the quotation you offered about does not do that. Andre🚐 01:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me, I assumed you knew that much of the history. I was referring to Francisco García Fitz and his "Reconquista, un estado de la cuestión p. 146: "Queda claro, pues, que el concepto de Reconquista, tal como surgió en el siglo XIX y se consolidó en la historiografía de la primera mitad del XX, se convirtió en uno de los principales mitos originarios alumbrados por el nacionalismo español." Translation: "It is clear, then, that the concept of Reconquista, as it emerged in the 19th century and was consolidated in the historiography of the first half of the 20th century, became one of the main original myths born of Spanish nationalism." All this ground has been covered at length by numerous editors in Archive 3. If you want to get up-to-date with the conversation here, read it—there's a lot of commentary there by knowledgeable editors. Carlstak (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That source doesn't claim there was no such thing as the Reconquista before the 19th century. That source clearly calls it "an ambiguous and controversial concept. has generated many debates among specialists. Like other great notions that have been lively and widely discussed in medieval historiography, such as Feudalism or Crusades. The fact that its use and theoretical construction are relatively recent explains that its meanings are subject to the concerns, ideas, feelings or prejudices of the authors who “invented”, applied or criticized it long after the phenomenon to which the term refers had ended, which is why the concept not only has varied meanings - if not a strong charge of ambiguity" Note the quotation marks about "invented." The idea that this mythologization of the Reconquista was an anachronism is clearly refuted by O'Callaghan: [7] 8th c. Christian chronicles portrayed the war against Muslims in Spain as a holy struggle destined for victory, casting the war as an inevitable struggle even when it was unlikely. [01:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)] P.S. it may well be the case, as argued by Martín Federico Ríos Saloma that prior to the 18th (not 19th) century, use of reconquista in the 'Compendio cronológico de la historia de España' (1795-1803) by José Ortiz y Sanz, it was usually called other things like the salvation of Spain, Catholic restoration (restauración), etc., but that doesn't mean this page needs a rewrite because it's not the common term or the concept and used by mainstream and reputable historians even still. Andre🚐 02:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Read the archive. I'm not going to rehash an old discussion. We all know that there is some disagreement among scholars, but there is a modern consensus, and what Fitz says is very clear—you're just winging it. I've been defending my point of view, and that of other editors you see on that archived page. I'm not trying to convert you—obviously that would be a waste of time. Consensus will decide the matter. I'll say it again—إيان's proposal offers a way, I believe, to present information in a way that might satisfy both camps, yea or nay. Carlstak (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The burden of proof is still unmet in this discussion, or in the archive, for sources demonstrating that the scholarly consensus predominates to such a degree as would be required for إيان's proposal as far as I understand it now, so as for right now, I'm at an oppose for the article split if such RFC is forthcoming, but I encourage them or you to write a new article at Myth of the Reconquista or whatever title you think, without messing with this one. This article is the vanilla generic article about Reconquista fully as an overview, which should include such sources as O'Callaghan's Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain from UPenn press, which show the concept existed in the medieval timeframe, and use that term to refer to it in the modern day. Fitz admits The Reconquista, therefore, is presented to us as an ideological construction that turned the war against peninsular Islam into a justified and legal activity, that is, into a just war, but also into a desirable, meritorious, pious, sanctified action, that is, into a holy war. And this interpretation, it is worth repeating, not only aspired to give a global and legitimizing sense to the military confrontation, but also to induce, motivate or mobilize both the warrior and those who had to contribute economically to the support of that. This can be deduced, for example, from the testimony of the deputies of the brotherhoods of the cities gathered in the town of Orgaz in November 1484[emphasis mine] to discuss the war of Granada and the needs that it aroused: the cause that explicitly led them to accept the payment of an extraordinary service, despite some previous negative experiences, was none other than "considering that the intention with which this service is requested is right, and the war in which it was spent is holy, and the manner of spending should be regulated, it seemed to them that reason obliged them to contribute new contributions....At this point, it seems clear that the concept of Reconquista is not only current, but that its use continues to be fully operational. And this is so because with a single term we refer, without the need for further explanation, to a key process in the Peninsular Middle Ages, such as military expansion at the expense of Western Islam, which was clothed and driven by a militant ideology based on the principles of holy war and just war, and which also had a decisive impact on the formation of frontier societies. It is true that some authors have recently made well-founded proposals to change the name with which we name all those processes, recovering the historical concept of Restoration, which until the mid-nineteenth century had served to designate them. We do not know if in the future this proposal will end up taking hold in historiography, but for the moment there continues to be a fairly broad consensus around the use of Reconquista: after all, if with a single word we can allude, intuitively, to such complex historical dynamics, perhaps it is not necessary to put an end to it. Andre🚐 03:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Enjoy. إيان (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

All this newbie wall of text verbiage, and it's almost suppertime? Sayonara! Carlstak (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:TEXTWALL: equal-but-opposite questionable strategy is dismissal of legitimate evidence and valid rationales with a claim of "text-walling I just quoted your own source to completely dismantle your arguments. Andre🚐 02:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Article needs some help!

I just read this article with basically no background on the subject, I am trying to fill some gaps in my own education. As it is, the current article's layout and style is confusing and doesn't really give understanding or the "big picture" of the history.

The "Concept and Duration" section seems out of place. The introduction of the article gives you a summary of the events, I'd expect a discussion of the events to follow. The first half of the section does its job but the second half starts going off the rails. "The Crusades" paragraph seems like two distinct ideas, the first part about events contemporary to the Reconquista but the second part on Chanson de Roland, although interesting and useful, seems like too much detail too early in the article and is not super related to where we started with the Crusades in this paragraph. The next four paragraphs seem to be entirely about the historiography of the Reconquista. This article deserves a first-class historiography section but instead it seems to be shoved into the end of this "Concept and Duration" section. Typically discussions of historiography are kept towards the end of the Wikipedia article, and for good reason - we are here to learn about the topic at hand at first and then learn about its academic history and context once we've got a grounding in the topic itself. And this section is going all over the place: the final paragraphs "The idea of a "liberation war"", "The same kind of propaganda" and "Some contemporary authors" are all about events in the past 100 years. We haven't even started explaining the Umayyad conquest yet, why are we talking about the Spanish Civil War?

The Background section of "History and military campaigns" is useful but too detailed. "After the establishment" paragraph is a lot of detail about a short period of time but doesn't seem to support anything in the rest of the article. "A serious weakness" paragraph is either contradicting itself or unclear, it starts by talking about serious internal problems with the Umayyads but the last two sentences basically say "actually, they kept it together until 719/720 and really just had their expansion come to a halt" rather than any sort of collapse or internal problems.

The "Early Reconquista" and "Northern Christian realms" sections are organized around the individual Christian states. However, the article's job here is to tell the narrative of the Reconquista, and these states are merely part of that narrative. The focus should be on the timeline! When conquest happens, when does it happen? And just as importantly, the space BETWEEN warfare, when conflict is light or non-existent, needs to be included in that narrative and given the same first-class treatment as the conflict does! Otherwise you wind up with an internally inconsistent article: is it "no military campaign lasts eight centuries", and you're describing it as a bunch of smaller efforts, or is it a single effort that's just had a lot of delays and setbacks? The focus has to be on the narrative timeline of events of the Reconquista to make sense either way!

The "Kingdom of Navarre" section starts with Pamplona and only brings up its conversion to Navarre in the very last paragraph. It also seems to drift in the article, not really tied into the main narrative of the Reconquista. I feel the entire "Northern Christian realms" section is losing a lot of the forest for the trees.

Anyway, I know this is a rant but hopefully someone who has actually read on the topic can take this to heart and make the article more useful for newbies and more cohesive.

Lordgilman (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. Andre🚐 03:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, for a page like this, with a broad organisational issue like the one raised, that is not as helpful advice as you might think it is. The reorganisation and re-explanation of what Lordgilman is talking about is an expert-level problem—or at least one that requires familiarity with the subject. Not to mention any ongoing controversy… — HTGS (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)