Talk:Caudillo

Random Notes

i think there should be clear diference between southern and northern south american caudillos. the article looks too biased about them being plutocratic authoritarian leaders. a simple definition could be that they were usually landowners, criollos, who often led militias mostly in the rural areas, it could be added that they were charismatic and populist on most cases. but you cant never say they always had the same views. and i neither think it's fair to put some of them in 19th century Argentina, and Artigas in Uruguay, mostly because at that time it was all part of the same thing, perhaps it should be refered to as River Plate, as it usually is. there should also be a difference between the original caudillos, and those in the 20th century who tried to use the term to their benefit. perhaps someone could see to it, or maybe i should. luceo non uro (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

---

This article is horrendously written. It has plenty of mistakes in grammar and just plain typos. Can somebody get on this? If not, I'll see what I can do when I have more time.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anvilman (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This article, though a good start, reads like a POV endorsement of caudillismo. In addition to the statement "[They] were very liberal leaders," how about adding something about their brutal authoritarianism? What about the fact that many Mexicans even today resent Santa Anna, for example, as a pusillanimous opportunist? Someone with a grasp of Latin American history should re-write this article to give it NPOV.

---

The word itself means "man on horseback,"

This is patently false. The provenance of the word is the Latin capitellus, meaning "small head", and this is reflected in the Spanish page for 'caudillo'. rone 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

---

comes from a previous military standing

No, in many cases they were just landowners with no previous combat experience and their armies were the gauchos of their estancias.

---

The Caudillos were reformist.

If this means they were keen on preserving the status-quo, yes, they were reformists. Deleted POV paragraphs.

---

[Rosas] used his strong charisma to unify the country. is a joke. "Rosas rose" is funnier, though.

---

But never was named proudly like caudillo, was a bd copy of Napoleao, although better than Dessalines. Never won but never lost in a normal battle with equilibrium sides o without doing la siesta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.45.166 (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Medieval

Wasn't caudillo used for Medieval troop leaders? I think that Cid and Pelayo are sometimes described as caudillos. And even the pre-Roman Viriathus. And probably when Franco named himself caudillo he was after the Medieval meaning, not the American one. -- Error

Described by whom?

Spanish Wikipedia uses it for Goth leaders. -- Error 02:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, in 19th and 20th-century Spanish, Attila would be a caudillo too.

How old is the word caudillo?

You made me open the DCECeH: Latin capitellum. 1st documentation: cabdiello in Gonzalo de Berceo, caudillo around 1300 in the Gran Conquista de Ultramar. -- Error 02:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Have you been reading very many pre-1800 accounts of El Cid then? Wetman 01:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not really, but Google is my friend: Eugenio de Tapia: un análisis del Cantar de Mío Cid en 1838, a commentary on a 1838 analysis of the Cantar de Mío Cid that tells:

Tal es la entrada del Cid en Burgos cuando va desterrado, el silencio de la ciudad, el terror de sus habitantes asomados a las ventanas para ver pasar al caudillo, sin atreverse a hablarle; el desamparo de

-- Error 02:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So at the time of the Latin American caudillos, the word was being applied retroactively to El Cid, etc. Good stuff! Get your research into the entry, it's just what it needs! 05:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Several sentences are very similar to those at The Columbia Encyclopedia. -- Error 02:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Pull them out to Discussion and we'll rework them. Wetman 05:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The modern caudillo is referred to as "president."

(Hugo Chávez is never referred to as "el caudillo.")

In many contemporary history books, leaders like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavéz are called "caudillos." Can we have a definition of the modern usage of the term? In this article, caudillo seems to refer to a very specific profile. -Saman

Tag calling for "sections"

Is this a joke? There are only seven paragraphs of text, not counting a single sentence opener! --Wetman 23:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JuanVicenteGómez.jpg

Image:JuanVicenteGómez.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Perón

Unlike other rulers, Juan Domingo Perón has never received any official title that calls him a caudillo. Perhaps someone here or there may have informally called him such thing, but that would be just a very broad analogy, such as when people call Bush a "cowboy". In precise terms, Caudillos belong in the context of the XIX century wars in south america, by 1950 they were a thing very long past. So, I suggest the mention to Perón should be removed. MBelgrano (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

mmm? I am not a historian and if I were it wouldn't be in Latin American history but I have researched US intervention in the Western hemisphere in a little depth a couple times, and it seems to me that I have seen the term used no earlier than the first years of the 1900s, in Central America. I looked it up at the time and found it meant "strongman" and since I saw it a little later with reference to Manuel Noriega that seemed to make sense. Possibly Hugo Chávez too. But it's also possible that those references were mistaken or I am remembering this wrong, so I want to bow to consensus here. I don't have any theory of what's correct. But I also can't tell what the consensus is. Does the article still need attention or has it been fixed? I just got here and don't care either way. In fact, maybe this is a case for an RfC, Hopefully a Spanish speaker will get interested and take this on as I foresee a lot of wear and tear on the article sometime soon. But yeah, if there are regional linguistic variations it would be nice to nail that down, yeah. Elinruby (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I re-arranged the lead, merged it with the origins section and dropped that phrase, more because of pretending that ancient figures were caudillos would require a historiography discussing that I don't see anyone picking. There are other contentious issues but removing then would leave the lead bareback, so I let it go. BTW, a caudillo was a "strongman" but not every "strongman" was/is a caudillo, the later being the case of Noriega, Chavez, or even Trump. Bertdrunk (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bertdrunk: Interesting and thank you for that; the prediction of more interest soon came from the fact that I (personally) arrived at the page wondering whether calling Trump a caudillo was correct or not. I haven't re-read the article yet -- I will -- but am interested in any other comments you may have on the subject. Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC) ~~

Well, I'm by far a specialist (very far actually) but what it's written is accurate: a caudillo consisted of a tripe of landowner-political-military power, take one he falls. What it is missing is their non-political and non-partisan character, and how they were ideologically neutral (by these I'm mean our XXI century standards, they never lacked the smallest reason to squabble over the pettiest issue like a life or death problem). I would recommend the Juan Manuel de Rosas article, he was the archetypical caudillo and the article is well written. Best regards. Bertdrunk (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Wot?

What on earth is this trying to say? ...the liberal caudillo lawyer and politician Jorge Eliécer Gaitán was honored with the title "Caudillo of The Colombian People" (and other nuances with a significance mostly demagogic -accused by the right wing opposition and some landowners-) and even without state responsibilities like cacique in Spain and oligarchical–plutocratic power. Jpatokal (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

References, anyone?

I don't see a single footnote or source cited here. This means to me that it is either original research (which is not approved by Wikipedia) or plagiarism. Can anyone with a knowledge of Spanish or Latin American history look this over? 63.143.210.215 (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

oh yeah, originally came here to ask for page numbers on the references, There are a handful now, general histories, ok I guess, as far as they go, but not for anything contentious Elinruby (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

migrated text from Latin America Caudillos

I have migrated text from Latin America Caudillos to this article, consolidating the information. I have left the list of caudillos there. I intend to add further text to this article.Amuseclio (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Amuseclio

Trump

Several analysts have associated Donald Trump (even before he became president) with Latin American caudillismo/populism/strongmen. Some sources:

• American Caudillo: Trump and the Latin-Americanization of U.S. Politics - Foreign Affairs

• A Peronist on the Potomac - The Economist

• Trump is the U.S.’s first Latin American president - Washington Post

• Don’t Cry for Me, America - analyst Enrique Krauze

• Trump Embraces Caudillo Politics as Latin America Shuns It - Texas A&M political scientist Diego von Vacano

• Donald Trump Tweets Like a Latin American Strongman - Politico

• Donald Trump evokes Latin America’s old-style strongmen - Financial Times

• Will Democracy Survive Trump’s Populism? Latin America May Tell Us - New York Times Op-Ed

I did not added anything since there is no "modern" section and I am not sure how to best introduce this to the article. Hopefully, these links can be useful to another editor. If nothing else, such a "modern" section should be created for more recent leaders (namely Alberto Fujimori, Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa and Nicolas Maduro) who have also been labeled caudillos. AuroralColibri (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

In modern politics, "caudillo" is simply a label, a simplistic comparison of modern politics with a system that no longer exist. It's similar to the times when Bush was called a "cowboy". The article about modern leaders with a mesianic style is Populism. The term "caudillo" being used to describe Trump actually means "populist", not an actual relation between Trump and the caudillos of centuries past. Cambalachero (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Excessive Anglo POV

Not that I hope to be heard, as Wikipedia is notoriously headstrong, but you've got Caudillo all wrong. As this is the English Wikipedia, naturally you are foreign to the word and it's meaning/usage, and your definition and sources are U.S authors or Englishmen attempting to interpret the term, but the meaning they attribute to it, one inherently negative, is simply wrong and likely influenced by their outsider's POV. When even the most elementary school-grade History books discuss "National heroes", say, the founding fathers of México, they call them Caudillos. A Caudillo is simply a strong military and political figure, likely at the head of some movement aiming for reformation or revolution. A misguided contributor mentioned Santa Anna and how he's still resented amongst Mexicans. Indeed, but he is resented because he was Santa Anna, not because he was a caudillo. He shares that title with some of the most revered historical figures in that country's history. Caudillo has no inherent negative meaning and this article is HEAVY with the seemingly Anglo assumption that it does. It is of note that many of the phrases that specifically identify Caudillo as carrying a negative connotation lack a citation to justify themselves. Anyway, thought I'd let you know.187.233.135.187 (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree on several levels. 1. As you say, a caudillo is simply a strong military and political figure; now, this is not considered a nice combination in general, it is not an anglo thing; in a democratic environment the military have no business in politics. Note that Caudillo is equivalent to führer or duce; you may blame Spain's Franco for this fact, as he had the words Caudillo de España por la Gracia de Dios minted in all Spanish coins for four decades. 2. even if it is an anglo thing, this is Wikipedia in English, and the word Caudillo is indeed used with its connotations in English. 3. Wikipedia is not headstrong on anything; it is made by its users, like yourself, and there are only strong policies as to how to demonstrate your points. --Megustalastrufas (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)3-

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Francisco de Miranda by Tovar y Tovar.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of Morales

I understand that he may be a polarising figure in Bolivian politics, but given that there isn't a single mention of Evo Morales in the article, why is his image listed here? Davoloid (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You are right, and Morales is no longer in that list - nor is Añez, as neiter is/was a military leader.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of "Personalist"?

Multiple times in this article, the word "personalist" is used to describe an essential characteristic of the rule of caudillos.

What is the meaning of the equivalent word in Spanish? In English, the word "personalist", if it means anything, refers to a broad branch of obscure philosophies based on the worth of the human person:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalism

That seems like an unlikely connection though. Is the intended meaning in this article simply "one who rules through personal charisma and authority?"

2001:1C01:2E05:9E00:384A:2479:44EF:7E3C (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• It seems to be a neologism not yet recognised by the OED. See Personalism and Personalist Regimes for an example of usage. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)