Talk:Battle of Covadonga

	Spain portal 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Portugal Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Military history: European / Spanish / Medieval / Early Muslim

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

Question

how come the asturians won when it lost 289 out of 300 of its troop?

It seems victory is conceded to the asturians due to the fact that both Alqama and Munuza were killed and their forces (rather superior) were decimated. Victory may also be conceded due to the fact that muslim forces never again challenged the Kingdom of Asturias (possibly because it was not worth the trouble) and because the battle is considered to be the starting point of the Reconquista, an ongoing effort that eight centuries later ended muslim rule in the peninsula. Also, Pelayo survived, adding to his charisma.Cptn. Nemo 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)--Cptn. Nemo (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the coordinates given for the battle site are incorrect. The coordinates given are: 43° 18′ 32″ N, 5° 3′ 20″ E which is located in southern France. The coordinates of Covadonga Spain are: 43° 18′ 32″ N, 5° 3′ 20″ W. Note that the only difference is that the correct location for Covadonga, Spain is "West" longitude NOT "East" longitude as given in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.102.212 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive victory?

The infobox labels this a "decisive" victory for Asturias.

Victory, sure, since it won the kingdom its independence. But how is having only eleven men survive decisive?

Well its decive because if they had lost then the asturian kingdom would be conquered by the moors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.100.246 (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, as understood by christians, spaniards, and specially asturians, the battle signifies the beginning of the Reconquista (won't find many historians that would disagree either). The Reconquista took centuries to force invaders out of the penninsula and its mommentum united Castille and Aragon into a force that would bent, blend, blast, shatter and melt cultures all over the globe for centuries and forever, all for good and for bad and mostly for both.

That is the significance (mostly accepted) of whatever happened in those mountains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptn. Nemo (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Asturians opened fire???

My understanding is that firearms have not been invented yet at the time of the battle!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pelayo → Pelagius

I've changed the name throughout the article from the Spanish to the Latin version, which is used in English texts and in any other article on Wikipedia mentioning Pelagius. Trigaranus (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Battle

The article places the Battle in either 718 or 722, but says it took place after the Battle of Toulouse, which took place in 721. Does that not eliminate 718 as an option? Tpsreport84 (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding skepticism

I removed the skepticism from the lead because the existence of the battle is not generally in doubt. See here, where Patrick Henriet says explicitly "La réalité de son existence, qui a suscité un certain nombre d'interrogations et des jugements variés, n'est généralement plus mise en doute aujourd'hui." Srnec (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]