Talk:Battle of Sagrajas

Title

I have come across this article by acccident and I am surprised that there seems so little discussion around the points raised below. However, I must say that almost nowhere in English sources is this battle ever called by the name az-zallaqah, it is always called Sagrajas so I propose to transfer the text to the battle of that name. In addition the content definitely does not match the quality of fairness of other Wikipedia articles (oddly enough it resembles a number of other article about Moorish victories, though) and strikes me as mainly POV in style. Could the author please improve it, failing which I shall go ahead with changes in due course--AssegaiAli 11:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article to make it flow better and sound less one-sided. It now has a new heading. Next I shall insert sources and a citation (from an Arabic dictionary)for the statement someone else put in about the origin of the Arabic name, Zallaqah. Whoever is insisting that the Castilian army was 60 000 (and keeps putting it back)- you need to put in a creditable reference otherwise it will have to be deleted. Similarly whoever has placed the sentence about Alfonso losing his leg , please attach it to the section that describes Alfonso's escape. Otherwise it looks disjointed. In addition please specify these Muslim sources. Thanks--AssegaiAli 18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Plate of Falsehood!

This article is so, so messed up. With the numbers, the events, the details, everything! Where the hell would the moriveds get indian swords from?? and whats so special about them?! How is it that the moors numbered exactly half that of the Spaniards, and how is it that exactly 59,500 Spaniards were killed?!

It also says that Ibn Tashfin, gave Alfonso three choices, convert, jizya, or battle?!!!! Thats totally false, Alfonso was the attacker, he had the upper hand, Yusuf ibn Tashfin and Muhammad ibn Abbad didnt have a choice but to fight and hold their ground. The article also fails to mention Ibn Zirri, the ruler of the taifa of Granada, who was also an important part in the battle. "Alfonso lost his leg", thats just plain exxageration. Arabic sources say that he was badly wounded in his leg, but he nowhere do they say that he lost it.

This article is a fantasy tale completely, anyone with enough historical information, please re-write it.

• Now that this article is translation of the week - could someone please respond to these points that were raised anonymously? I too was bemused by the term "Indian sword" - I'm just curious to know what they are. Otherwise, I really don't have a feel for the factual basis of this event one way or the other - I would feel better if someone could respond to the above. At a minimum - are there any references that can be cited? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bin Tashfin indeed gave Alfonso 3 choices, and it was in the time of exchanging letters between each other just days before the battle began. --Kinrous (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory

In one part of the article the Castilian force is referred to as 60,000 strong and that is treated as a fact. In another part of the article it is said that the Castilians had only 14,000 men under arms and that contemporary sources exaggerate the size of the battle. The article is thus contradictory and badly in need of some cleanup and citation of references. David Newton 16:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is based on english-language sources which tend to downplay Moorish and Islamic military victories. I imagine much of the vandalism of this article between 60k and 12k troops under Alfonso VI has to do with the common understanding of people who have learned about this battle from Arabic-language sources. Very little if anything is translated from Arabic on this topic, so this article, like so many other articles on wikipedia concerning Islamic civilization, are going to be one-sided and sometimes vandalized by frustrated readers.208.191.183.135 (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be but the idea that the Castilian army was 60000 strong is laughable to put it mildly. If Arabic sources state this then there are just plain wrong. Armies of more than 25000 men are practically unheard of in early medieval times and are completely unknown in 11th century Europe. It's as simple as that.--79.74.170.157 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

could you provide a cite for this idea that 60k was much too large for an 11th century army? I'm quite certain it was a fairly common. At the very least, I'm sure that 2,500 troops as is currently claimed was not even really an army. It might be the case that there were 2,500 cavalry and even this would be a small amount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.235.227.144 (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rather discuss the assertion that there were 60 000 men in Alfonso's army. I can promise you that it was not common in any way. I challenge you to find a widely accepted case. Compare Sagrajas with Battle of Rio Salado in 1340 for which both sides had prepared well in advance, and still had little more than 20-25000 men on the field. Many Middle Age chroniclers tend to exaggerate numbers involved anyway, partly through poor understanding of the significance of the numbers and partly because they had no access to accurate estimates of combatants. We have more information and more sophisticated means of analysing the situation today which is why sometimes the numbers quoted by medieval historians have to be discounted. In the case of Sagrajas, 60000 men would imply that at very short notice King Alfonso raised a bigger army than any other Spanish King before the 16th century - sorry but that is just not believable and is wishful thinking on the part of the Arabic chroniclers.--AssegaiAli (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Title, again

Shouldn't this be titled "Battle of Sagrajas" as opposed to "Sagrajas"?Bless sins (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree--AssegaiAli (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

strength of armies ?????

At one place it says 12000 muslims and at other place it says 15000 in one division 11000 in an other and 14000 in an other division ????? vs 2500 christian army ????

the article is biased and is highly contradictory on numbers. I am removing the contradictory numbers until some one find an appropriate source to tag it here as a reference.
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove references and sourced material as other editors are unlikely to support this. You make the point that there is a lack of clarity over the numbers of combatants at this engagement. This I think, everyone can agree on. The available sources are not in agreement and neither do they appear to be wholly reliable on this point. However, our sources do emphasise that Yusuf's army was large and was exhaustively assembled by a determined recruitment drive so its reported size of about 15000 seems reasonable. The size of the Castilian army is easier to estimate because we know a good deal about the administration of Castile and a fair amount about the population of the kingdom. From the continuing unsourced edits to this article, it would appear that Arabic sources support a size of 60 000 for Alfonso's army. Unfortunately, this cannot be taken at face value as no Castilian army in the Middle Ages was so big (suffering from a perennial shortage of manpower and with a longstanding policy of attracting peasant settlers from elsewhere in Europe), and neither did Castile have the resources to raise such an army at all let alone in the rather hasty way Alfonso responded to the Almoravid challenge.--AssegaiAli (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed adil please would you state what exactly about the article shows bias? (now that the numbers involved are clearer)--92.40.207.68 (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

the number of castillan forces is total comedy, is it logic that Ibn Abbad didnt have 2500 soldiers to fight against Alfonso's army so that he had to ask Al Moravid's help and jeopardized loosing his kingdom for them which happened latter on, besides the name Al Zallaka meaned slippery land because of the extensive blood shed in this battle, is it logic that such small number of christian soldiers will shed this enourmous amount of blood to make the land slippery, it was more logic to give this name to the battle of alarcos or even battle of las navas de tolosa, the number of castillan forces couldnt be 2500 at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.106.178 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about. This article is about verifiable facts only.--AssegaiAli (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Making conclusions about numbers based on the use of the word 'bloodshed' doesn't seem very logical to me - an exercise in futility rather.--90.210.252.71 (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think almost everyone agrees that this article's detail is poor and the sources appear flimsy, mostly just a spare sentence in a larger piece of work concerning subjects much wider than just this battle or timeperiod.

Though to be honest, it is up to the users with real access to Arab / Spanish sources and a reasonable ability in English to do this, I have already rewrote several battles on Chinese history with much more authentic sources .

(RollingWave (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

A random statement from an editor uninvolved and, apparently, lacking in knowledge of sources concerning this battle is, to be honest, without worth.

As for "Arab.." sources;

"It is very surprising, however, that 'Abd Allah, who took part in the battle, has so little to say about it, and the details available to us have reached us mainly through exaggerated accounts of later Muslim historians such as al-Himyari, Ibn Abi Zar and the anonymous author of the Hulal. 'Abd Allah does not even use the name al-Zallaqa- he refers to it simply as the battle of Badajoz(waqi'at Batalyaws). Nor does he mention the day or date on which the battle took place. He neither describes his role nor that of other Andalusians in the battle nor does he give its results. All that he tells us is that Alphonso made a surprise attack, Muslim losses were less than those of the Christians and the Almoravid returned to Seville "safe and victorious". 'Abd Allah does not mention al-Mu'tamid's reported request to Yusuf, immediately after the engagement, that the Muslim armies should pursue their vanquished enemy, nor does he say anything about the reported death of Yusuf's eldest son which is given, by some Muslim historians, as the reason for the Almoravid's sudden return to Morocco." -- The Tibyān: memoirs of 'Abd Allāh B. Buluggīn last Zīrid Amīr of Granada, by Amin T. Tibi, p 242. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

i'm not a regular user of wiki, but i just wanted to say that it's 2 years after you guys stopped trying to fix this, and so far all i see is that the strengths of the armies have become quite off (2,500 men). logically speaking the christian army couldn't be that small and grant that name to the battle. since both sides definitely lost a large number of men which would therefore preserve that name in both books. (15-mar-2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.49.61.208 (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC) edit: also i thought the castilians had their camps sacked. I don't think this page is accurate at the moment, and if there is more than one side to the story then i think it should be mentioned for the sake of a balanced view and knowledge of the history of the battle. thanks guys, i really appreciate what you guys do.

Do you have any sources to support your opinion(s)? --Vrok (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you guys brought these numbers!! it's well known that Alfonso's army was bigger than Muslim's army by small margin (both armies range between 20k and 25k).--Kinrous (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Saying that 60.000 was an exaggeration for the medieval period is just a joke! Much longer before then many armies were assembled in a larger number, for example, Hannibal 50.000 against 90.000 Romans in Cannae Battle 216 BC, Alexander Th.G led 47.000 against 100.000 Persians in the Battle of Gaugamela, Khalid Bin Alwalid led 36.000 against 150.000 Romans in Yarmouk Battle...etc. Do you want more figures of much earlier period? Thus, assembling 60.000 Castelians in 11th century was much easier. That is what happened in accordance to the Islamic sources which are the only sources of that period because the Castelians did not have historians to write such events at the time. All what you have from non-Islamic source is a secondary source in our modern time.--AlexBeloved (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Large armies before modern times were only affordable to large empires with access to the required populations and resources. Iberia in the Middle ages was fragmented and poor with low population (as other editors have put on this page), only on rare occasions could rulers gather sizeable forces. The examples you cite are irrelevant as they were only possible for specific fully-planned campaigns by wealthy monarchs/administrations. No European states could afford armies over 30000 in size between Charlemagne and the later 1400s. --CouncilConnect (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It is the custom of Europeans to reduce the number of their soldiers in defeats such as Zallaqa, Hattin, Mohax and Pharma, and inflate the numbers of a fictional opponent from the Thermopylae Corridor to Vienna, a demographic map showing that the population of Iberia in the 11th century is 9 million, so an army of 60,000 men is acceptable, Also, Muslims in their history would not have risked sending a huge army through ships, so an acceptable number according to Islamic sources is 40,000 fighters, and the number may have increased when an Andalusian army was added. Surioussam889 (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia is written using reliable secondary sources, not opinions. As it stands right now, there are non-English primary sources that lend nothing to the article. All I see are opinions unsupported by any sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

ok i give some soucre [11] In 1086, Yusuf IbnTashfin, leader of the Almoravid Empire, killed 24,000 Castillians in the battle of Zallaqa"; Robert J. Bunker -2014 [9] Bernard F. Reilly, The Contest of Christian and Muslim Spain:1031-1157, (Wiley-Blackwell, 1996), 88

[8] Lewis, David Levering, God's Crucible, [8] Lewis, David Levering, God's Crucible,p 364 strong of armie must be 30,000-40,000 fo castille and 30,000-45,000 fo almoravides Jubaco (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You mean this Robert J. Bunker? That has no specialization in medieval, Islamic, or Spanish history? Sounds like an unreliable source.

Bernard F. Reilly, The Contest of Christian and Muslim Spain:1031-1157, (Wiley-Blackwell, 1996), 88, states "To the battle which took place on October 23, 1086, at Zalaca just north of Badajoz, Alfonso brought an army that numbered about 2,500 men..."

Lewis, God's Crucible, 361, 364;"Of King Alfonso's 2,500 men...", "Yusuf had the advantage of number--probably three times larger than those under Alfonso's command after the arrival of King 'Abd Allah of Granada.."

So Alfonso has 2,500 troops backed by Reilly and Lewis. Lewis states Yusuf had three times that number. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

There are sources confirming that Yusef bin Tashfin crossed 40,000 soldiers to meet 2,500 and some Jews. This is a mockery. All you have is secondary references that do not mention what you rely on only as speculations. Please distinguish between source and reference Tfu 9i0 (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written using reliable secondary/tertiary sources. Clearly you do not know this. If you continue to have an issue with the sources used, I strongly suggest you take your concerns to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Per the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol.11, page426, Amin Tibi;

• "AL-ZALLAKA, a decisive battle which took place in Muslim Spain near Badajoz (479/1086) and was won by the Almoravids [see AL-MURABITUN] in their first encounter with Alfonso VI of Castile."
• "Alfonso's capture of Toledo (478/1085) posed a great threat to the Ta'ifa princes of al-Andalus, driving them to seek the help of the Almoravid sovereign of Morocco, Yusuf b. Tashufin [q.v], who responded to their appeal and called on the Andalusi amirs to join his campaign. On learning of the advance of the Muslim troops, Alfonso raised his siege of Saragossa and sought help from Sancho Ramirez of Aragon and from other Christians beyond the Pyrenees. The ensuing encounter thus assumed the character of a holy war, just one decade before the first Crusade in the East."
• "The battle of al-Zallaka (Span. Sagrajas) took place on the plain of the latter name on the banks of the Guerrero, some 8 km/5 miles north-east of Badajoz, on Friday 12 Radjab 479/23 October 1086; hence the reference to the battle in Arabic sources as Yawm (al-)'aruba ("Friday encounter")."
• "It is quite clear from the eyewitness account of 'Abd Allah b. Buluggln, the Zirid amir of Granada, that, in contrast to Alfonso's eagerness to engage in battle, Yusuf b. Tashufin was extremely reluctant to do so and even hoped that Alfonso would give up and withdraw."
• "The AndalusI contingents were led by al-Mu'tamid b.'Abbad [q.v.], king of Seville, while the Almoravid troops were deployed in such a way as to enable them to join battle as required. When the latter failed to arrive, however, some of the Andalusis sought refuge within the city walls of Badajoz. The Almoravid sovereign, in the meantime, despatched a force to set fire to Alfonso's encampment, while he himself joined the fray with his big drums resounding like thunder in the hills and wreaking havoc on Alfonso's troops and horses. According to Ibn Abi Zar', it was the Almoravid himself who set fire to Alfonso's encampment and then launched an attack on the Christian troops from the rear, annihilating most of them. Alfonso is said to have escaped with barely 500 survivors."
• "Details in Arabic sources about the battle have reached us primarily through the exaggerated accounts of later Muslim chroniclers such as al-Himyari, Ibn Abi Zar' and the anonymous author of the Hulal. It is surprising that the Zirid amir of Granada, himself a participant in the battle, has little to say about it. He simply refers to the encounter as the battle of Badajoz, and he does not give the day or date on which it took place, nor does he mention his role or that of other Andalusis in the battle. All that he says is that Alfonso mounted a surprise attack, that Muslim troops were outnumbered, and that the Almoravid sovereign returned to Seville "safe and victorious" ('alahali salamat wa-nasr). Could it be that the Zirid's brief and somewhat casual account is due to the fact that he and other Andalusls did not distinguish themselves?"
• "His defeat at al-Zallaka cost Alfonso the loss of a large number of his seasoned troops, checked the progress of the Reconquista, stopped the payment of tributes to Alfonso by the Ta'ifa amirs and, above all, revived the hopes and raised the morale of the Andalusis. The Almoravid sovereign's popularity with the Andalusi masses and, of course, with the fukaha' was greatly enhanced. Although the Almoravids did not attempt to recover Toledo, their intervention helped to prolong Muslim presence in al-Andalus, which, to quote al-Marrakushi, had been on the verge of being handed over to the Christians."

Even the Encyclopaedia of Islam makes no mention concerning the number of troops at the battle(except the supposed 500 that escaped!). --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)