Talk:Rebellion of the Alpujarras (1568–1571)

Moriscos or Mudejars.

After reference to the Wiki page on Moriscos, there seems to be a conflict of terms. Here Morisco is deemed to mean those Muslims living in Spain before the expulsion. However, the Morisco page states that Moriscos are Chritstians who once were Iberian Muslims. A definition of terms would be appreciated.

Sven.

This article does not sufficiently cite sources, and seems to include personal POV and bias. Please consider revising.

Baseline24 (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE

About "Moriscos": indeed, this term is often misunderstood. But the article makes it clear, stating: "This revolt enabled the Catholics to claim that the Muslims had violated the terms of the Treaty of Granada, which were therefore withdrawn. Throughout the region, Moors were now forced to choose between conversion to Christianity or exile. Some did indeed emigrate to North Africa. Those who remained became known as "Moriscos" or "New Christians"...

This is consistent with the Wikipedia article on Moriscos, to which there is a link.

Bergerie (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: better call it Moorish independence War

This is not an "ordinary" revolt that is limited to the level of populace, peasants or nobility. And not a revolt against certain measures, or certain advisors, but a fully fledged secession and independence war. They proclaimed their own king, Aben Hommeya, who was a descendant of Moorish kings in a straight line. In dynastical terms we would even have a legitimate ruler here! Intellectuals of all times may have chosen to call it a revolt, and with the derisive term Morisco connected to it, but just look at the facts: this is a secession, coupled with an independence war. The term Morisco is worse than calling someone "negro" or "eskimo" because it became in use as a deliberately meant derisive term by one of the parties involved, and therefore lacking neutrality, including as a wikipedia article by people who should have known better. I understand though that the term Morisco is very common in use, and not meant derisively by those modern people who are ignorant of the real facts.

Still, I propose, from now on, to call it the Moorish Independence War. Both for politically correct reasons, and for the accuracy of the use of language in historiography. We have the same right to give it a name as anyone before us. It's up to us to set this straight for future generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.84.44 (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

RESPONSE

The events in question have always been called "Rebellion" or "Revolt" (or the equivalents in Spanish). To use the word "Independence" would project a present-day concept, which would be inappropriate and confusing.

As for "Morisco", see answer above. This was the term applied at the time by the Spanish to those Moors who had converted to Christianity (or were supposed to have done so). But it is true that this is not well understood, so it would be better in the title to refer to "Moors".

Bergerie (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

RESPONSE 2

Absolutely not. Conquest cuts both ways, and Muslims don't have a monopoly on conquering others, may I remind you that. What happened in Spain was poetic justice and the Visigoths would've have marked that karma is a bitch, if they were still around (and believed in karma).

RESPONSE 3

Can we all avoid stupid comments and discussions. Its a historical article not a football blog.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Mistake 'end of Islamic presence'

"The second rebellion led to the expulsion of almost all Moors (or "Moriscos") from the city and province and marked the end of Islamic presence in Spain."

This is wrong. The Moriscos from the Kingdom of Granada were scattered over the rest of Spain, but the expulsion of all Moriscos from Spain (ending Islamic presence in Spain) was only decreed in 1609, several decades after the end of the second rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.55.171 (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

RESPONSE

The consequences of the 1568-71 rebellion in the Kingdom of Granada should not be confused with the expulsion at the beginning of the 17th century of "Moriscos" remaining anywhere in Spain. The text should now be clear: it reads "Most of the Moorish population was then expelled from the Kingdom of Granada, and were sent to other parts of Spain. As this left the mountain villages almost empty, Catholic resettlers were brought in from other parts of Spain." And in a new paragraph: "Subsequently, from 1609, remaining Moriscos were expelled from all over Spain: see expulsion of the Moriscos."Bergerie (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Bergerie (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible OR

The article currently has a number of uncited statements of opinion, such as "there was little or no follow-up in terms of explaining Christianity: indeed, the priests themselves were mostly too ignorant to do so". These should be cited or removed. DES ^(talk) 12:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RESPONSE

The source for that statement is now cited, and other references will be added where appropriate.

Bergerie (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Self references

The first two entries in the Notes section are self-references and should be removed or perhaps moved to this talk page. The same is true for some of the content in the Sources section, neither the English- nor the Spanish-Language Wikipedia should be mentioned. DES ^(talk) 12:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RESPONSE

Those two notes have been rewritten to avoid the "self-reference". But is it really wrong to mention that the English article is largely based on the Spanish one, when the subject-matter is a part of Spanish history? Of course, the sources could all be put together, but this would be less informative.

Bergerie (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Bergerie, it really is. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. The article should still read clearly when/if it is copied and published off Wikipedia. Even on Wikipedia it should stand on its own, without a requirement to refer to the Spanish-language edition of Wikipedia. Except for articles about Wikipedia itself, no Wikipedia article should mention that it is on Wikipedia, phrases such as "in this Wikipedia article the term X will mean..." should not be used. All relevant sources should be cited in the article itself. If there are related Wikipedia articles not linked to in the body they can be listed in a "See also" section. If there are other publications (histories, for example) which might be interesting or useful to a reader but which are not cited as sources, they can be listed in a "Further reading" section.

If the article includes text directly translated from the corresponding article in the Spanish-language edition of Wikipedia, this should be noted, and a link to the version of the source article(s) that was (were) used should be provided for copyright attribution, on this talk page.

By the way, in a dialog on a talk page, the usual Wikipedia convention is that each response is indented one level deeper, to indicate who is responding to whom. Use leading colons to achieve this indent, one colon per level. DES ^(talk) 14:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OK - Bibliography rewritten to remove references to Spanish Wikipedia. Bergerie (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change of title

As regards the title: "Morisco rebellions in Granada" is unsatisfactory, because the term "Moriscos" is often misunderstood (see above) and because "Granada" can be taken to refer just to the city, whereas the rebellions - especially the second - took place mainly in the mountains of the Alpujarra. Also, since the Moors were revolting against Christian rule and "Morisco" means a Moor converted to Christianity, the wording is self-contradictory. So the clearest and most accurate title would be:

"REBELLIONS OF THE MOORS (MORISCOS) IN THE KINGDOM OF GRANADA"

If that is too long, we could leave out (MORISCOS).

Bergerie (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I still disagree, but others may have other views. It is not essential, in my view, that an article title eliminate all possible unclarity if the article itself does so, and if no other article exists for it to be confused with. Most readers will either not know exactly what or where Granada is in the first place, or will know that the word refers to both a city and a Kingdom. Perhaps Morisco (Moorish) rebellions in Granada would help with modern unfamiliarity with the term "Morisco". DES ^(talk) 14:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Latecomer to discussion but what is wrong with War of the Alpujarras as it is generally known?Asilah1981 (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

DES Your reasoning honestly makes no sense to me. You can't change the name of a historical event because you feel some readers are to ignorant to understand what its about or where the country it happened in is.

Asilah1981 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Asilah1981, I have no intention of "chang[ing] the name of a historical event" for any reason at all. If in fact "War of the Alpujarras" is the WP:COMMONNAME, the name by which most sources would refer to this event when they do refer to it, then that should be the name of the article. I wasn't aware that there was an established name for this event or sequence of events. I came to this on a help request, not as one knowledgeable on the subject, merely as one knowledgeable about Wikipedia practices and standards. I merely disagreed with the specific changes suggested by Bergerie, but of course my view counts no more than any editor's does. DES ^(talk) 00:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The main Spanish source - Mármol de Carvajal - called his work Historia de la Rebelión y Castigo [punishment] de los Moriscos de Granada. It is true that the present Spanish Wikipedia article is entitled "Rebelión de la Alpujarras", but how many non-Spanish people have ever heard of the Alpujarras, and how many would think of using this as a search keyword? Also, both the rebellions involved the city of Granada, though the second developed mainly in the Alpujarras and other rural areas, as described in the article.

It might be helpful if Asilah would explain his/her objection to my proposed changes. Otherwise I would settle for DES' proposal: Morisco (Moorish) rebellions in Granada.

How is this change to be carried out? Bergerie (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Bergerie I honestly don't understand what you mean by there being a confusion with the term Moriscos. It is pretty straightforward concept and well known historical group and has not one but two relevant articles on wikipedia. Their definition is simple: Nominally christian (by decree) Spanish subjects of Muslim background suspected of continuing to practice Islam. As for the issue of Granada, the Morisco rebellions occured in the Kindgom of Granada (modern day Granada, Almeria and Malaga provinces), including the Granada city but ocurring mainly in the Alpujarras which is the south side of Sierra Nevada. We can't rename historical events on the basis of hoping they will be found more easily using keywords when looking them up. Frankly, I have never heard of an argument like this on wikipedia and it really sounds bizarre to say the least. There are much more obscure names than "War of the Alpujarras" on wikipedia such as the football war for example. No one would ever consider renaming it for the sake of making it easier to find on Google.... My opinion: Leave it as it is or change to its most commonly used name War of the Alpujarras. Definitely do NOT equate Morisco with Moorish, that would highlight a massive misunderstanding of Spain and Spanish history. Asilah1981 (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of those historical and geographic facts, and I do not agree that "Morisco" is a well-known term. Also, you are wrong about "suspected of continuing to practice Islam: many (especially in Granada city) were genuine converts. However, I leave it to DES to decide: his proposal: either Morisco (Moorish) rebellions in Granada (which I prefer) or the present title: "Morisco rebellions in Granada". Bergerie (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Bergerie there were genuine converts to christianity all over Spain, but that doesn't change the fact that, as I said, they were suspected as a community of continuing to practice Islam. In any case, this is not the reason why I so strongly disagree with your proposal, perhaps i have explained myself badly:

By the 16th century, after 9 centuries of Islamic presence in Spain, you can't really speak of "Moors", which sounds like they are some foreign or invading people. There were Spanish subjects who were legally either "Mudejares", officially recognized as Muslims or "Moriscos", New Christians officially Catholic. It is worth noting that Caro Baroja mentions in his seminal work "Los moriscos del reino de granada" that after the expulsion from Granada, many moriscos returned pretending to be either Old Christians (not recent converts to christianity) or, more surprisingly, pretending to be Mudejares i.e. beloning to the 500 or 600 Mudejar legally muslim families which remained in Granada, had not participated in the revolt and were not expelled from the city.

I would understand and perhaps agree with you if there was some alternate or more commonly used meaning of the term Moriscos, or if the article Moriscos or Explusion of the Moriscos had been renamed to Explusion of the Moriscos (Moors in Spain) or Explusion of the Moriscos (Former Muslims in Spain). But its not the case and would make the article look amateurish. The only example I can think of which supports your point is that the article on "Gitanos" has been renamed Roma in Spain, despite the fact that there are plenty of Roma of foreign extraction in Spain who are neither Spanish nor Gitano. But there are sufficient strong reasons for this: Roma are a transnational identity with dozens of different names in different countries and it wouldn't make sense to totally disconnect them through different names.Asilah1981 (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

UPGRADING?

Since posting this enlarged article a month ago, I have worked to deal with the issues:

1. The neutrality of this article is disputed. I have removed or rewritten any text that might express my personal opinion. This also applies to the commentaries I had included in the Bibliography.

2. This article needs additional citations for verification. There are now references for all important statements. In this process, I have also added several works to the Bibliography.

3. This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. Here too I have removed or edited such passages.

I also removed the "self-references" that were criticised by DES. These were references in the notes and the Bibliography to the corresponding Spanish Wikipedia article, on which my enlargement was mainly based. This has in fact been beneficial, since I felt freer to refer to several more English sources. (So now it is perhaps the Spanish version - which only uses a few Spanish secondary sources - which should be rewritten!)

If any further corrections are needed, I shall deal with them.

I see that others are now contributing to this article.

Consequently, I hope that the revised article can now be upgraded. Who can do this? Bergerie (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that this has now been done: thanks to whoever was responsible.Bergerie (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

TWO ARTICLES?

I think there really ought to be two articles: Rebellion of the Alpujarras (1499–1502) (or First rebellion of the Alpujarras) and Rebellion of the Alpujarras (1568–1571) (or Second rebellion of the Alpujarras). I agree that "Granada" gives the wrong impression and "Morisco" is simply incorrect for the first rebellion. The rebels of 1499 were Moors (Muslims), not nominally Christian moriscos like those of 1568. The historiography, both English and Spanish, prefers "Alpujarras". The word "rebellion" could be replaced with "revolt". The second rebellion is sometimes called the War of the Alpujarras, as already noted, and I think that's also an acceptable name for the article after a split. Srnec (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Srnec I fully agree with your proposal. Bergerie what do you think? Asilah1981 (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

RESPONSE

Thanks, but I don't think this works. First, because the present text on the first rebellion is very short: it would need to be greatly expanded, and personally I am not inclined to do this. Secondly, and more important, because the first revolt and the manner of its suppression contained the seeds of the second, and the growing oppression in the interim is very important for understanding the second: there is a continuum.

I have however added to the title of the section on the second rebellion War of the Alpujarras as it is true that this is what it is often called.

As between "rebellion" and "revolt", I am easy although I think "revolt" means an action relatively local and limited in time. Spanish only has the one word: rebelión ("revuelto" means scrambled egg!)16:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Bergerie Your argument makes sense also, since there is no article on this event in Spanish wiki, and is just englobed in a general article called "Revuelta Mudejar" referring to multiple events across the the country. (The Spanish for revolt is "Revuelta" in the femenine btw). I would change "moor" to Muslim/Mudejar though. Moor or Moorish is a term which I don't think is appropriate, particularly since it is not used in Spanish history when refering to those muslims under christian rule. Moor/Moorish has connotation of either a recent foreign invader or, at the least, a muslim political/military power on the peninsula. Finally, I think the first revolt is given too much significance in this article. It should simply be part of a wider "context" section. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

SPANISH WIKIPEDIA ON 1st REBELLION BELOW:https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_de_los_moriscos#Corona_de_Castilla

El 18 de diciembre de 1499, sólo tres meses después de la llegada de Cisneros a Granada, los mudéjares del Albaicín se sublevaron y sólo depusieron las armas tres días después gracias a los buenos oficios del conde de Tendilla y del arzobispo Talavera10 a quienes los sublevados les dijeron "que se tornarían cristianos y haría todo lo que el arzobispo y el conde mandasen con tal que el arzobispo de Toledo [Cisneros] saliese de Granada".11

Pero en enero de 1500 la rebelión se extendió a las Alpujarras y duró tres meses, llegando a ocupar algunas fortalezas costeras. En octubre de 1501 una nueva rebelión se produjo por las tierras de Almería y no fue sofocada completamente hasta mediados del año siguiente, coincidiendo con una cuarta revuelta que tuvo su epicentro en la serranía de Ronda. En la represión de esta última intervino el propio rey Fernando el Católico. La consecuencia de estas rebeliones fracasadas fue la conversión en masa de los mudéjares, presos del pánico y pensando obtener mejores condiciones de los vencedores. Las nuevas capitulaciones firmadas por varias comunidades mudéjares y los representantes de los soberanos, como las de Tabernas, Baza y Huéscar, son significativas en este sentido pues en ellas se expresa el compromiso de que estos cristianos nuevos sean sometidos al régimen común, aboliéndose los impuestos exclusivos que pagaban hasta entonces y teniendo acceso a los cargos locales, manteniéndose además el aprovechamiento comunal de los pastos. Incluso se establecía un castigo para los cristianos viejos que los injuriasen llamándolos "moros" o "tornadizos". Asimismo se les reconocían ciertos derechos culturales pero no de forma completa, como disponer de sus propios carniceros, pero debiendo matar las reses "por la orden e manera que las matan los cristianos", o mantener sus formas tradicionales de vestir "hasta que rasguen los vestidos que agora tienen".12

El cardenal Cisneros defendió la idea de que los mudéjares debían "ser convertidos y esclavizados, porque como esclavos serán mejores cristianos, y la tierra quedaría segura para siempre". Los reyes, por el contrario, eran partidarios de una política más moderada. Así lo contó Fernando el Católico a sus consejeros:10

Cuando vuestro cavallo haze alguna desgracia no echáis mano de la espada para matarle, antes les das una palmada en las ancas. Pues mi voto y el de la reyna es que estos moros se baptizen. Y si ellos no fuesen cristianos, seránlo sus hijos o sus nietos. Las conmociones del reino de Granada condujeron a los Reyes Católicos a promulgar una real cédula el 12 de febrero de 1502 en la que se obligaba a los mudéjares de toda la Corona de Castilla a escoger entre la conversión al cristianismo o el destierro. La inmensa mayoría optó por la conversión. A partir de esa fecha los mudéjares castellanos pasaron a ser moriscos.9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asilah1981 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I stand corrected on revuelta. For the rest, I have already explained why I think it would be a big mistake to divide this article into two - one for each rebellion. I am not sure why Asilah has quoted the Spanish article above, as it is obviously inadequate: in particular it says nothing about the causes of the first rebellion. There is plenty about that in the primary and secondary sources which I have listed in the present article. If someone wants to create a new article, or even enlarge the present short section on the first rebellion, he/she should consult all thbe relevant works - I do not intend to do so.

As to whether we should in this context refer to Moors, Moriscos or something else, I think the discussion has gone on long enough. Either may be acceptable, depending on context: both are used in the sources. "Mudejar" would be wrong for this period in the Kingdom of Granada, "Muslim" inappropriate unless one wants to stress the religious difference.

Since the article has now been accepted, it is no longer "my" article but that of the community. I am making what will probably be my final contribution. The last paragraph in the introduction, about the 17th-century expulsions, has undergone successive additions and is now much too long. Readers - who already have to cope with two rebellions and one expulsion - can easily be confused. All that is needed here is the existing reference to the relevant Wiki article. This applies also to discussion about Moriscos who may have returned. Bergerie (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Bergerie Please do not stop editing this article, particularly if you have worked significantly on it in the past. I contribute to wikipedia only sporadically, but personally I have an interest in the moriscos and their obscure history and your efforts are very much appreciated.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH

Asilah1981 I have returned to this article in order to update the reference to the very important work by Javier Castillo Fernandez, now a book of 571 pages. I found the article in a terrible state - someone who did not know how to edit...

I also find that you insist on adding a paragraph at the end of the introduction. This now reads: "Between 1609 and 1614, the Spanish Crown undertook the expulsion of the Moriscos from all over Spain. Although about half of Granada's morisco remained in the region after the dispersal, only 2000 were expelled from Granada, many remaining mixed with and protected by old Christians who were less hostile towards them than in other regions of Spain (notably Valencia)."

You quote two sources: one is unintelligible (Harvnp) and the other refers to two maps by Cortazar. I checked the latter last year and it does not provide the information in question.

Your statement that "about half of Granada's morisco [Moriscos] remained in the region after the dispersal" runs contrary to all the information I have gathered on the effects of the Spanish conquest. You may be confusing the city of Granada (where this is possible) with the Kingdom. Data provided by Vincent - the most authoritative source on these matters - indicate that the number of households in the Alpujarra (where most of the Moriscos lived) fell from over 8000 in 1568 before the rebellion to about 2500 in 1574, and these were mostly Christian resettlers.(One can extrapolate these figures to some 40,000 individuals before, mostly Moriscos, and about 7,300 afterwards (the Christian families were much smaller than Morisco ones).

I cannot accept such a misleading statement on a very important point and at the very beginning of the article. If you cannot produce better sources, then, please, yourself remove these statements.

I also query the figure of 2000 expelled from Granada (city or kingdom?) after 1609, and anyway this is confusing to the reader unless you make it clear that you are referring to the later expulsion - and the appropriate place for this is the article on that event.

≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.82.206.238 (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, yes with this topic its hard to reconcile figures since a lot of them are down to the opinion of each author. I don't think it was me who added those sources. Evidently the 2000 is the figure for the city of Granada not the kingdom (present day provinces of Granada, Almería and Málaga). For the Kingdom the Morisco population loss was around 100,000 - around 70,000 dispersed and the rest either killed during the conflict or escaping to north africa. The total number of Moriscos in Granada was estimated at between 120,000 and 140,000 - so this is where the confusion comes from. Between 20,000 and 30,000 remained after the expulsion and imagine a significant number returned as "christian" settlers. Also I would comment that it is wrong to believe the Alpujarras is where most of Moriscos lived - the Alpujarras is where the Moriscos rebelled and waged war (the Spanish expression "echarse al monte" comes from the common use of mountainous terrain as a base for rebellion throughout history). Both muslim and christian population was evidently denser in valleys and coastal areas. I'll try to use this rather thorough source as basis to make corrections. Read from p275 onwards and tell me what you think (its in Spanish, Im assuming this is your mother tongue). https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=1249217 Asilah1981 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)