Talk:Granada War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Spain (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Inaccurate paragraph removed[edit]

The following was removed. I have broken it down and interspersed my own comments. This is why reliance should not be placed on books for a general audience. They are usually simplistic and out of date.

The Granada War took place on the cusp of the introduction of gunpowder, an invention which would greatly change the style in which wars were fought.

Gunpowder was introduced to Europe over two hundred years earlier. Cannonry was first recorded in European warfare in the Four Lords' War in 1324. 1482–92 is hardly the "cusp". That said, it is true that gunpowder greatly changed the face of warfare.

It still maintained many features of medieval warfare, such as mounted knights with codes of chivalry, but the open-field battles upon which knights shined were rarer. Instead, the war saw a greater focus on sieges backed by cannons.

While "mounted knights with codes of chivalry" were an important feature of medieval warfare, the implicatioin that open-field battles were also is false. Sieges were far more important in the Middle Ages than open-field encounters. Further, knights were often slaughtered in the open field, though sometimes they "shone". The only real difference was the replacement of traditional siege weapons by cannons.

The armies fielded included more professional soldiers rather than the peasant levies of earlier warfare; various international troops fought in it as well, including a group of English archers who aided the Spanish.

Professional soldiers were commonplace throughout much of Europe for centuries before the 1480s. Even the concepts of money fiefs and retinues blur the distinction: they were as paid as modern armies. Further, international warfare was also commonplace in medieval Europe and a good fighting man could find employ just about anywhere. Srnec (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is my fault... sort of. I was translating the article from Spanish, and it's an FA over on their wiki; perhaps I trusted it more than I should have (although as is obvious I didn't get anywhere near close to finished; only the first part), or maybe just missed some of the more subtle implications (I'm not a native Spanish speaker). As an amateur history buff, yes, I knew that gunpowder was in Europe earlier, but I have no personal clue as to when exactly it was popularized in Spain. It specifically notes in the Spanish article that this was a first "modern army" type deal with mercenaries from all across Europe, and it also strongly emphasizes the role of artillery. It also plays down the role of knights. I'll agree that the phrasing was bad - while knights were better on open-field battles, they still lost a lot as you point out. As for mercenaries... hmm, maybe I'll need to look at the Spanish article again. Yes, mercenaries were in Europe for a long time (especially during the Crusades), but the Spanish article seems to strongly imply that there was something new about the ones in this war. For example:
Fue experimentada en estas Guerras de Granada una nueva formación militar mixta de artillería e infantería dotada de armamento combinado (picas, espingardas, más tarde arcabuces...), con utilización menor de la caballería que en las guerras medievales, y con soldados mercenarios sometidos a una disciplina diferente a la del código de honor del vasallaje feudal
(roughly) "In the wars of Granada a new military formation was experimented with that mixed artillery and infantry with combined arms (pikes, falconet cannons {I think? Got that from es:Espingarda}, later arquebuses), with less utilization of knights than in medieval wars, and with foreign mercenary soldiers with discipline different than the the code of honor of the feudal vassals."
There's another passage (right towards the top of the article) which talks about the war being a notable intermediate step forward from medieval warfare to modern wars, and flags sieges with cannons, the smaller importantance of knighthood, and the hetrogenous army which included mercenaries as examples of modernity. Maybe it should just be rephrased more as a reminder that foreign mercenaries were important? If there's some subtlety about what exactly was different about these mercenaries, I'm missing it, and I certainly don't mean to imply that these mercenaries were a totally new idea.
I haven't read any books on the war itself (though I have read a fair amount on medieval Spain in general), so I'm very much flying blind here. You have any better ideas for how to phrase this? SnowFire (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I will look into this if I have the time. Srnec (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

Adding the translation tag to incorporate and translate all the info from the Spanish Wikipedia, which is much more extensive. Your help is welcome. --Polylerus (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, when I saw that this was a Spanish FA and non-existent here, I started translating it. Managed to get through a bit of it, but got distracted and ended up with just a stubby overview (which I feel is still better than nothing). I might give it another go, but I suspect I'd want to read some more literature on it first since I apparently stepped on some land mines with one section (see discussion above with Srnec). Though... I'm not sure I see the point of the template you added to the top of the page, though? Isn't that kind of thing normally reserved for talk pages? Good to see that others are interested in the article anyway. SnowFire (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You should definitely continue translating. There are empty sections in this article, which would benefit from some translation. Someone the Person (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Lede section[edit]

User:Iñaki LL, re this edit: I'm not particularly disputing you on the facts here. There's lots of very interesting things to be said about the position of Muslims & conversos in Spain after the Granada War, and Wikipedia coverage of it should definitely be increased, but I don't think your phrasing works for this Granada War article itself. The phrasing is very awkward - autochthonous is not a word frequently used in English, and "increased aggression" is vague and potentially misleading. (Since this is an article on a war, it makes it sound like the war continued, rather than stifiling decrees / laws / tensions.) I'm not sure why you're removing the link to the converso article either. Finally, while the "authorities" were indeed a problem, the Christian "settlers" were an equal problem to Granada, and lots of tensions I refer to are due to things like local Andalusian Christian nobility who had moved in getting in a dispute with a morisco rival, and sometimes playing the "they're not a loyal Castilian" card. The book "Muslims in Spain, 1500-1614" goes into this in more detail, and I've been meaning to add some info from it into articles like morisco... but all this would happen later, and space is limited in the lede, so I certainly think my phrasing gets the point across and doesn't undersell the problems Spain's Muslims would face. If anything, I think your phrasing is the one that underplays their problems, as it makes it sound like the only problem was the government which wasn't entirely true. (Indeed, the royal government pursued a contradictory policy in Granada, and sometimes stepped in *in favor* of the Moriscos in disputes. Not that this would last...)

Any thoughts on a compromise lede? SnowFire (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry let me say I'm lost. I don´t know what link I have removed, what I did was add one that was more relevant to the topic, a very relevant one, since they faced expulsion. Admittedly, autochthonous may refer to other fields, we may use 'native' if you prefer. If you think your reference gives accurate relevant info or shed light, add it. There is little doubt for whomever has studied a bit the period (XV-XVIth century) that it is a consistent policy of cultural and ideological assimilation and ultimately population replacement. Of course the newcomers were colonists, and they brought their demands along. That Ferdinand played ambiguous..., it is well known the devious and dishonest approach of him, namely sign compromises that were broken as soon as he had achieved his purposes. As far as I see it my wording is more accurate, sorry but a clash between "old christians" and "new christians"..., the point is being omitted, the implementation of a well designed, consistent policy. You make a proposal, I may agree (or not). Iñaki LL (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I would have preferred that you added it here since the discussion in not over. It's quite long for a lead paragraph, it sounds ethereal though. (Who implemented this policy?) Tensions were brought about basically by decisions of the authorities, be it Inquisition, governor, Ferdinand of Aragon, that affected Granadans (especially of Jewish and Muslim religion) on specific matters of their lives. This sounds like a civil war, which is a major handicap in the approach: it is basically about an occupied territory and the decisions implemented there by the new authorities, including confiscations and bringing new colonists along. In fact, "the new" were the newcomers from Castile, Aragon and other places, not the ones who had inhabited in the place for generations, centuries, or ever. I think this point is central to the understanding of the topic, but it's being omitted. Can you integrate it? Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I somewhat reduced length, and added accuracy. I won't dwell on more details here, I don´t think there was any "convivencia" at this point in Iberia, only outbursts of persecution and contained discrimination against different rites and religions, especially after accession to the throne of Ferdinand. Reciprocal? Not at all. I will add my summary here:

"The aftermath of the war saw an end to tolerance to religions other than Catholic on the Iberian peninsula. The Jews were forced to convert to Christianity or be exiled in 1492. In 1501, all of Granada's Muslims were obliged to either convert to Christianity, become slaves, or be exiled; by 1526 this prohibition spread to the rest of Spain. "New Christians" (conversos) came to be accused of crypto-Islam and crypto-Judaism, often accurately.[1] Spain would go on to model its national aspirations as the 'guardian of Christianity and Catholicism'." Iñaki LL (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your version sounds good to me. The only change I made is that I think the fact that Catholicism was the preferred religion is obvious from the next sentences ("obliged to convert to Christianity" and all), so I left in the bit about convivencia instead of "end to tolerance to religions other than Catholic." Yes, the idea of Spain as a golden land of religious tolerance from 1100-1480 is totally wrong, *but* the situation then was clearly more measured and less extreme, and the end of it is a very notable result of the Granada War, and it gets across the same point that Christianity was now the official religion. Harvey seems to back this up, I can drop some quotes here if you're interested. Regardless, it's interesting, and I agree that, say, the Morisco article should be expanded even further with details on the treatment of Granada's Muslim population. SnowFire (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I may do it another time, I can´t get stuck here for ever. There is still a diffusion of responsibility, an aggression of Ferdinand and Castile's militaristic drive and their economic urges (and personal glory?). Macchiavelo was adamant. Anyway. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Battle of the Axarquia[edit]

The battle of the Axarquia -so-called- was not a victory but was in fact the disastrous military incursion in which a large Christian raiding force suffered catastrophic defeat 'near Malaga,' as mentioned in the previous sentence in this article. In the same year, Boabdil was captured near Lucena, fifty miles to the north, in the modern province of Cordoba. Changing test accordingly. JF42 (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Harvey, L. P. (2005). Muslims in Spain, 1500 to 1614. University Of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-31963-3 Check |isbn= value (help).