Talk:History of Catalonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject History (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spain (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Nonsense map[edit]

The map of the catalan countries is pure fantasy. There is actually a fascist current in Catalonia that wants to include territories as Valencia or Balears in a invented entity called Catalan Countries. Valencia and Balears are different countries and communities inside Spain, with their own governments.

Sorry, "fascist" is just what you say - like neonazi group 'Espana 2000' or 'GAV'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.131.86 (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

To me, the term only refers to a linguistic or cultural comunity, just as the francophonie or la hispanidad. Are those terms a fascist current? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.162.102.35 (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Union with Aragon[edit]

I've encountered a sentence in the Spanish-lamguage article, which has me rather confused.

After saying "Más tarde, bajo el gobierno del conde Ramón Berenguer IV (1131-1162), se produjeron diferentes hechos fundamentales para la historia de Cataluña," which I'm turning into "During the reign of Ramón Berenguer IV (reigned 1131-1162), several events occurred that would be crucial for the future of Catalonia," we get the following monstrous sentence:

Por un lado, su boda con Petronila de Aragón, lo que supuso la unión del condado de Barcelona y el reino de Aragón en un nuevo Estado, como matizó Pedro IV en el siglo XIV, que tenía Aragón como título y nombre principal Casa reinante que absorbió a la casa de Barcelona, extinguida en 1150 por mutua conveniencia y deseo del titular de esta última, el conde Ramón Berenguer; adquiriendo como propio un linaje superior, pero renunciando al suyo, no titulándose más que princeps junto a su esposa regina; de modo que el hijo de ambos, ya con Barcelona incorporada a la corona, se tituló rex de Aragón, y no de Cataluña.

I'm trying to translate it. Here's what I've got, but it is unclear about just what Peter IV of Aragon is said to have done that is different from what Ramón Berenguer IV did. I think it means that it was not until the time of Peter IV that Aragon and Barcelona became a single state, and up to that time they retained their own laws, but, if so, we don't have a word of that in our article on Peter IV. "...como matizó..." literally just means "...as mixed..." (in this case I assume "...as was mixed by...") but even that is not exactly clear.

On the one hand, his marriage with Petronila of Aragon, which implied the union of the County of Barcelona and the Kingdom of Aragon in a new state, como matizó Peter IV of Aragon in the 14th century, which [or who?] had Aragon as principle title and name of the royal dynasty that absorbed the House of Barcelona, extinguished in 1150 by mutual convenience and desire of the title-holder of this last [the House of Barcelona?], Count Ramón Berenguer [IV]; acquiring as his own a superior lineage, but renouncing his own, not titling himself more than prince (princeps) together with his wife, the queen (regina), in such a manner that their son, now that Barcelona was incorporated into the crown, titled King (rex) of Aragon, and not of Catalonia.

So is it dynastic union in 1150 and union of states under Peter IV? I believe the statement in our article about dynastic union in 1137 is wrong: that seems to be the date of Ramón Berenguer IV's betrothal to the then 3-year-old Petronila.

Jmabel | Talk 06:27, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)


This long sentence actually lacks a main verb, making it semi-incomprehensible. The relevant information needs to be extracted and expressed as more than one English sentence:

His marriage to Petronila of Aragon implied the union of the County of Barcelona and the Kingdom of Aragon in a new state — this union being later confirmed by Peter IV of Aragon, who used "Aragon" as his primary title and name of his ruling house — which absorbed the House of Barcelona, abolished in 1150 for reasons of mutual convenience and by the will of the Count himself, as he relinquished his own lineage to benefit from a higher one. Thus, he took the simple title Princeps (Prince) beside his wife with her title of Regina (Queen); and their son, now that Barcelona was incorporated into the Crown, took the title Rex (King) of Aragon, and not Catalonia.

Chameleon 12:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's clearer, but I bet it's not quite accurate. I bet it's:

...this union being later confirmed by Peter IV of Aragon. Ramón Berenguer IV used "Aragon" as his primary title and name of his ruling house, which absorbed the House of Barcelona, abolished in 1150 for reasons of mutual convenience and by the will of the Count himself...

Thanks a lot for your help! I'm particularly glad to have confirmation that this was tortured syntax in the Spanish original. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:32, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

CNT crisis?[edit]

From the article: "As for the workers' movement, there was the CNT crisis with the break-away faction in the 1930s..." I don't know the story on this, it's not in our article on the CNT, nor in Anarchism in Spain. I doubt we clarify it anywhere. Can someone who knows what this is about write it up in a relevant article and link from here? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:21, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

"Prohibited"[edit]

In the following passage, the portion I have bolded here was recently and anonymously added: "…the maritime expansion into the Atlantic and the conquest of Central and South America was essentially not a Catalan enterprise (even prohibited in doing so by Castille)…" That makes no grammatical sense, and the first interpretation I can come up with makes no historical sense, at least not to me. I'm guessing that what it is saying is that somehow Castille prevented Catalans from participating in the enterprise, but that doesn't make sense to me: this is post 1492, and while Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon remained nominally distinct, they were embodied in the same people (well, I suppose that as long as the Reyes Católicos lived, Isabella was tecnnically queen of Castille and Ferdinand King of Aragon, but as far as I know they did not in any meaningful way have separate policies, merely separate laws). So in what sense is it Castile that prevented Catalans from participating in the expansion and conquest? Can someone with more knowledge of this aspect of Spanish history than I have please help sort this out? - Jmabel | Talk 05:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Castile and Aragon were separate states until 1716, in spite of the dynastic union, and had separate laws and customs administration. An exemple of that policy was that the new established colonies in America were Castilian (note that were not Spanish). They were administered as appendages of Castile, and the Aragonese were prohibited from trading or settling there. Seville was the only authorized port to trade in America, and the Casa de Contratacion and Consejo de Indias controlled all trades. This prohibition last until 1778, reversed by Charles III of Spain, and its said to be one of the reasons of the catalan decline in 16th century. When american trading was liberalizated, catalan economy improved. --Joan sense nick 01:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's clear. The text in the article wasn't, so I'll fix it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

latest edits claiming Catalonia persecuted Spanish-speakers[edit]

This is categorically "nonsense". During the period in question, Catalán prospered at the expense of Aragonés, not that of Castellano (what we now call "Spanish"). Tomertalk 01:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


The map with commentary 'Muslim conquest of Iberian Peninsula in 711-719' is absolutely false.

Never was existed the 'reine goto de argó', and the muslims conquired all the territorie of actual catalonia during about 1 siecle, and about 2/3 of the territory of actual Catalonia about 450 years.

However, the nortwest of Spain (Galice anda Asturies) are the zones that never was conquired by muslims.

As the map is a historic manipulation, i think must be deleted in Wikipedia. —This unsigned comment was added by Pispiribis (talkcontribs) 24 March 2006.

Technically the map makes sense in itself, but not in the article. A visigothic king Ardo struck coins in Zaragoza, Barcelona and Narbonne -i.e. seems to have controlled at least partially Tarraconensis and Septimania-, aprox. during this timeframe (cf. Roger Collins' "Early Medieval Spain"). But using it in a History of Catalonia article is evidently a manipulation.
BTW, Pispiribis, If Asturies never was conquered, how could Pelayo defeat the Muslim Governor of Gijon ? ;-) --Wllacer 10:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That mandible: how old?[edit]

"the mandible of a pre-Neanderthal found in Banyoles, some 250,000 years old": I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, but it would seem to deserve a citation. - Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The mandible is not accurately dated : according to morphology, it looks like a pre-Neanderthal (which means at least 200,000 years) but according to a recent ESR dating it could be younger (see http://www.naturalsciences.be/mars/litterature/bibliography/bibtest/Grun2005). The question now is to know if morphological study is more trustworthy than ESR dating. Anyway 25,000 is definitely wrong since Neanderthal disappeared around 30,000 years ago. Best, I20 10:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sentence fragment[edit]

The following sentence fragment was sitting in a paragraph of its own: "In 1235 born Catalonia". Since its meaning was unclear and it lacked context, I cut it. If this means something, please feel free to return it to the article, but please expand and clarify. If (as I suspect) it was written by someone without much English, please feel free to explain here in Spanish, Catalan, or even French. There are plenty of people working on this article who will be able to read those languages. - Jmabel | Talk 19:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Underreferenced[edit]

This is very underreferenced. It was initially translated from the Spanish Wikipedia, where it was utterly unreferenced. - Jmabel | Talk 19:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Europe in 1470[edit]

"Over the next few centuries, Catalonia became one of the most important regions in Europe" but still I can't find it in the map. Maybe it could be better reworded like this: "Over the next few centuries, the Crown of Aragon became one of the most important regions in Europe". Which fits with the title of the section. In fact, catalonia should be replaced with Crown of Aragon in this section at least. BTW. "(or, as some historians now call it, the Catalan-Aragonese empire)" should be replace by "(or, as some catalans now call it, the Catalan-Aragonese empire)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.170.68.198 (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Who are those historians[edit]

I strongly disagree with the following sentences: "As part of the Crown of Aragon — most historians would say the dominant part — " "The latter became a new state, the third kingdom associated with the crown of Aragon (or, as some historians now call it, the Catalan-Aragonese empire)" I would like to see some references that proove those 2 statements, because at the moment I have seen no historians that have stated that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.169.255 (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Rhetorical device?[edit]

The article mentions Columbus' "discovery." While Columbus did not discover America as I know it he did in fact make a discovery. So I am removing the quotes. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Catalonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Poor use of English[edit]

'florish', 'for what the Counts of Barcelona were very grateful' and various other errors - I've corrected two others, but I really can't be bothered to check the whole text. Once again, I wish non-native users of English would have their Wikipedia articles checked in advance by native speakers before posting them. Wikipedia is fast becoming a source of broken English, which is then copied by other non-native users.89.212.50.177 (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel the same way; thanks for making my brain hurt somewhat less. I wish I had time to correct and clarify all the badly-structured sentences, here and on other pages like it, but I'll do what I can.71.127.11.236 (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Catalonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Institut Nova Història[edit]

Hi, Institut Nova Història is a foundation subsidized and awarded by the Catalan government, supported by Catalan historians, intellectuals, writers, Important politicians of the main parties of Catalonia, members are parlamentaries of Catalan assembly and they often do conferences in the assembly, according to all there are enough people that considers that as the true history of Catalonia, i though this article should be in the 'See Also' section of the article on the history of Catalonia and related articles of the Catalan independence movement. --ILoveCaracas (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Oriol Junqueras (second leader of Catalan independence movement, Artur Mas (strong main figure of Catalan movement and many many of important catalan people openly supported these theories, Institut Nova Història received an award from a Catalan important gala, why this cant be named in this article, as a very popular belief conviction of Catalan people over their history?--ILoveCaracas (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggested that he open a discussion at the Village Pump, which he did, so I think this should be discussed there, not here, to reach a global consensus. Maragm (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)