Talk:Chichimeca War

Sources

No doubt I will be criticized for relying so heavily on a single source (Powell) for this article, but he is the only important source in English I have found for the Chichimeca war. And, although I'm not at expert on Mexican scholarship, Powell also seems to be a major source for Mexican scholars. If somebody can suggest another good source -- in English or Spanish -- I would be glad to take a look at it. Smallchief 14:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Any of a number of publications by Alberto Carrillo Cázares would be one suggestion, particularly El debate sobre la guerra chichimeca, 1531-1585, 2 vols, [2000], which I think is a well-regarded contemporary work by one with a long specialty in the area. And kudos for the work on the expansion, nicely done!--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm aware of Carrillo's book and it can be previewed on Google. But it doesnt seem to be available in US libraries or for easy purchase, so I didn't use it. Hopefully, more attention paid on Wikipedia to Mexican wars such as the Chichimeca (classic guerilla wars worthy of study by military historians) will result in more material becoming accessible in the U.S. Smallchief 12:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, looking at your talk page, I enjoyed reading your discussion of the credibility of Gavin Menzies book, 1421. Smallchief 12:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wandering Bands or Nation?

Chichimeca nations resented the intrusions by the Spanish ... and allies on their ancestral lands

contradiction

Chichimecas were nomadic and semi-nomadic people

Having their sinicuichi and eating it too.

Is new world history a snapshot in time during a halt to a migration? This sheds a different light on which lands belong to whom. Thanks for the insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.99.98 (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a contradiction to be nomadic and have ancestral lands. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on Result of the Chichimeca War : « End of conflict through peace treaties – Progressive integration of native people into the Viceroyalty of New Spain » vs « Chichimeca Victory – Spanish defeat »

Some contributors, in violation of the wikipedia's universal code of conduct, repeteadly modify the result of the conflict pretending, arbitrarily and with no explanation or previous discussion, it was a « Chichimeca victory » and a « Spanish defeat ». In doing so, they are trying to impose a mere interpretation of their own while the historical facts, well described in the main text – backed with sound bibliography, clearly refute this false outcome, only existing in their minds.

The historical facts are that the conflict ended with peace treaties ; that the Spanish rule prevailed and expanded progressively to any and all concerned territories ; that the Chichimecas people became subjects of the Hispanic Monarchy ; that the Chichimecas progressively abandoned their previous state of nomadic life, joined the new political, socio-economic and cultural reality and their blood fused with the Spaniards'.

Therefore, the pretended result, claiming a victory of Chichimecas and a defeat of Spain is simply nonsense and totally incompatible with the current end of the conflict - peace treaties - and its consequences. --PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

There is much more nuance to this war than you seem to imply. Though yes, in the long term, "Spanish rule prevailed," the outcome of the Chichimec war was an economic and military loss for the Spanish, who spent more resources to lose this war than Cortez spent to topple the Aztecs. Through their sheer military tactics, the Chichimeca forced the Spanish to seek peace because they were unable to be defeated, causing Spain to play on an entirely different, peaceful set of terms. Such a concession was unprecedented in the history of New Spain up to that point, encapsulating a victory by the Chichimeca to successfully end the Spanish strategy of blood and fire. Thus, the Chichimeca won militarily, but arguably lost culturally after the war's conclusion. Speaking strictly within the framework of the war, the Chichimeca won indisputably. Even after the war, the Chichimeca have preserved their indigenous culture on a level not often seen in Mexico. Thus, it would be disingenuous to not at least include the military and economic outcome of the war in the "result" section, as opposed to the current version which excludes the detail of exactly *who* asked for peace treaties (such ambiguity implies that both sides wished to make amends), and what the alternative to "progressive integration" was in the first place (hint hint: a more violent ending).

Let's nitpick this wording: "End of conflict through peace treaties – Progressive integration of native people into the Viceroyalty of New Spain" Hm, peace treaties sought out by whom? Which side won militarily? Which side lost economically? Progressive integration of the "native people?" Can we not spare our readers the confusion of guessing which native people this description refers to? Would it be that hard to replace native people with Chichimeca? Why is Spain's name so long? Most other "results" sections shorten names to avoid implying grandiosity (i.e. simply "North Korea" instead of "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea" in Korean War - Wikipedia). It's odd that the Spanish get their name elongated, yet the Chichimeca aren't even named at all.

Do you now see where I am coming from? Is this interpretation simply a "pretended result?" Believe it or not, the result section can contain nuance, and is big enough to assert that both sides won and lost in a variety of ways. --Rankedo (talk) 3:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

the whole chichimeca miltiary victory, spanish cultural victory sounds like its something thats coming out of Civ lol

Citation for “Importance” heading

None of the information for the Importance section is cited. Can this be rectified? C.eddy.garcia (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)