Talk:History of Spain/Archive 1

Archive 1

Opening comments

From a powerful monarchy and empire to fascism, Spain has a fascinating history.

Partisanship

The following is a partisan comment of the sort that I (LMS) for one would like not to see on Wikipedia...

Modern spanish history is anything else than the history of their nations. Spanish state has been constructed on the opression of these nations.

The funny thing about this is that the first nationality that had to be repressed in order to create Spain out of (mostly) Castilla and Aragon was the Castilian nationality, in the revolt of the Communards (Comuneros). The revolt ofthe Reapers (Els Segadors) in Catalonia and the suppression of the Fuero de Navarra came much later. However, because the language chosen by the Imperial administration of Charles I was Castilian, it was easier for the Castilian elite to identify with the Empire, and the Communards were quickly forgotten while, for instance, Els Segadors is the national anthem of Catalonia. Obviously the Catalan elite was not going to side with the Castilian-speaking opressors of the Catalan-speaking peasants. — Miguel 23:54, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hay que ser xungo para escribir esto, capullos...

---

I'd have to agree with Larry. The comment doesn't distinguish Spain from the United States. <ducks and runs>

Reconquista

Missing material

The Reconquista section has been missing since mid-November. Is there a good reason for this? AdeMiami 18:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

La expulsión de los árabes de España, conocida como Reconquista,fue iniciada por el primer Rey de Asturias, llamado Pelayo (718-737,)que, en los montes de Covadonga comenzo su lucha contra los invasores musulmanes. Posteriormente, sus hijos y descencientes continuarían con su tarea hasta llegar a la expulsión total de los musulmanes. Aunque no se se conoce con certeza el origen de Pelayo, todo indica que se trataba de un noble visigodo que, refugiado en las montañas de Asturias, lideró la rebelión de la mayoria de los habitantes del norte de España contra la invasión musulmana de la Península Ibérica.

I found this in the article. Could be nice if translated to English :-) --Anders Törlind

---

Here is a translation:

The explusion of the Muslims (I'm not sure they were Arabs - the ethnicities of the Middle East are complicated, and they were many tribes invading Spain) known as the Reconquest was start by the first King of Asturias, named Pelayo (718-737), in the montains of Covadonga started his fight againist the invading Muslims. Later, his sons and decendates continued with his work until all of the Muslims were expelled. While I'm not sure if it is known with certainty the origen of Pelayo, everything indicates that he started as a noble Visigoth the, in refuge in the mountain of Asturias, led the rebellion of the majority of the inhabitants of Northern Spain againist the Muslim invasion of the Iberian Penisula.

I didn't actually insert this sense it has what in English is considered run-on sentences. Plus, it could in general use some work to make it flow better and be in a more logical order. I'm not sure whether the Reconquista should stay the Reconquista or be translated into English - my Spanish history comes from a Spanish class. -- Eean

---

It is true that in the late 16th century Elizbeth's "sea dogs" caused considerable harm to Philip II's finances, but as the Spanish Armada points out, the Spanish navy after the armada defeat came to grips with English attacks - it was really the Dutch in the 1630s that really devestated Spanish shipping in a prolonged with long term results - Riv

Autonomous Communities

"Now, Spain is formed by 17 autonomous communities". Should this be included in a "history" of Spain, or in a broader article on the present makeup of Spain? In either case, shouldn't there be a list of these autonomous communities? -- corvus13

I have just modified the list of autonomous communities, as they are all roughly equal from the legal point of view, and they are usually counted as 17 and not 16+1.

A better treatment could be written, but that would to touch the different degrees of autonomy at each Community. Roughly speaking, Galicia, Basque Country , Catalonia and Navarra have a greater degree of self-administration as the rest - but de-centralization is still going ahead and Spain is practically a federation in the German sense.

In any case, this is my first look at Wikipedia and I am surprised at the extent and quality of the work done.

Structure of the article

I have structured this article roughly according to the historiography I remember from my 6th-11th grade courses. Someone who actually knows about all this stuff should flesh out the article.

Also, it is not clear to me how much of this should be in the main article and how much should be in other articles like Spanish Civil War history_of_Spain/reconquista. Also, is the standard practice to make reconquista its own article, or to make it part of the namespace "history of Spain"?

-- Miguel

I'd mention it in History of Spain, but also create a separate article, because it's important enough to deserve it! HK -- Manuel Freire

I think it is a bit difficult to discuss Al-Andalus and the Reconquista as two completely separate subjects. Up until the mid-13th century at least, they have a large influence on each other. I think it would be a good idea to combine them into a separate article, which can describe the events in more detail (this article is getting very big as it is). -- Björn Sandberg 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Al-Andalus has to have its own page, written in its own terms and not subordinated to the history of Spain or to the Reconquista. Something along the lines of the excellent book

Richard Fletcher, Moorish Spain.

Similarly, The history of the Christian kingdoms from 711 to 1492 needs its own main article. Maybe Medieval Spain would be more neutral? Then again, this would exclude the kingdom of Portugal (otherwise you'd be calling Portugal part of Spain, and that would offend a bunch of people) and that's also wrong from a Historical point of view. Spain didn't really exist until the 16th century anyway.

Ultimately you might be right: a single article about the reconquista would have to be written, focusing on the ecolution of the various political entities in the Iberian peninsula from 711 to 1492. I can't think of a proper name for that article.

How about Reconquest of Spain, is this sufficiently NPOV from the Muslim view, or should we call it Muslim Spain analogously to the simple edition? -- Björn Sandberg 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the name reconquest is appropriate. It is not until about the 13th century (contemporarily with the crusades) that the Christian kingdoms start thinking in terms of taking Spain back from the muslims. After all, in the 11th century El Cid, supposedly a Christian nationalist icon, chose to become a vassal of the Moorish king of Zaragoza for a while.

How about Medieval Iberian Peninsula or The Ibeiran Peninsula in the Middle Ages?

— Miguel 23:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll have to check my books, but I think the idea arose somewhat earlier than that. After all, the major part of the reconquest took part during the 11th century, with Alfonso VI (though the Almoravides and Almohads might have triggered some further religious fervor).

You need to distinguish Castilla's expansionism from the crusader mentality of "take back from the infidels what is rightfully christian land" that only came about later. — Miguel 16:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The trouble with the current suggestion is that we also have a large section on Visigothic Spain, which deserves a separate article. And neither Spain nor Portugal existed at this point. So what do we call it? Might Iberia work as a generic term for the Iberian Peninsula? Too bad the Romans were gone or we could've called it Hispania... -- Björn Sandberg 08:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The large sections we have are ok, the main articles should be longer and only when we have longer articles should we think about reducing the length of the sections here. By the way, the excellent article Visigoths does not develop Visigothic Hispania sufficiently.

According to Wikipedia's own Portugal article, Portugal was independent on and off starting in the mid-11th century. "Portugal" did exist as a separate realm, while "Spain" did not until the 16th Century. — Miguel 16:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wonder whether we really shouldn't work with the people over at History of Portugal on the history before 1492, and move as much of the content from the large paragraphs here to the main articles. The differences between Spain and Portugal in this respect are that "Portugal" exists as a political entity since the 11th century, and that it reaches its maximum extent during the 13th century, so for them the reconquista ends then, not in 1492. In fact, Aragón also reaches its maximum extent then, and Granada becomes a vassal of Castilla for two centuries until the Catholic Monarchs get it in their head that they must have the entire peninsula. Describing the conquest of Granada as "the culmination of the crusade" was a convenient way for Isabel and Fernando to conceal more mundane motivations. — Miguel 14:21, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is a mess: Hispania redirects to Spain...

Let's do something. Let's gather here a list of all the possible names we have been discussing, and decide what to write in each of them and what should redirect to what. Let me start:

• Iberian Peninsula — physical geography
• Iberia — preroman period
• Hispania — roman period and middle ages
  • Roman Hispania
    • Hispania Ulterior/Hispania Citerior — Roman Republic's administrative division
    • Hispania Tarraconensis/Hispania Betica/Lusitania — Roman Empire's administrative division
  • Visigothic Hispania
  • Medieval Hispania — 711-1492
• Spain — 1492-present

I have added subfields to Hispania per your suggestions below.

Yes, I noticed the Hispania redirect; it was a tad annoying, since there isn't really a direct correspondance. Should we really use both the terms Iberia and Hispania for what's essentially the same thing? Iberia seems to have several meanings, so I'm leaning toward sticking to Hispania. Don't know if it's "correct" though - I just have an amateur interest.

In my view, Hispania should be a fairly short disambiguation page, something like what's currently on the Iberia disambig page:

Hispania or Iberia, collective term for the various countries on the Iberian Peninsula.

* During Roman times, the three Imperial Roman provinces covering the peninsula, roughly corresponding to modern Spain and Portugal: Hispania Taraconensis, Hispania Baetica, and Lusitania. See Roman Hispania

* During the Medieval times, this dictionary uses Hispania as a collective term for all the political entities on the peninsula, including Al-Andalus (and later the Taifa kingdoms, e.g. Granada and Valencia), Asturias, Castile, Leon, Navarre, Aragon, Galicia and Portugal. See Medieval Hispania

The Iberian Peninsula article currently makes a half-hearted attempt at describing the history of Hispania. This is best kept on the actual history pages, though we might leave a reference to them. Björn Sandberg 08:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I prefer the greek name Iberia to refer to the preroman period. It is a bit of an anachronism to call it Hispania before the romans get there. Originally they are both synonimous with Iberian Peninsula, though.

I would actually like to see a discussion of physical geography under Iberian Peninsula.

— Miguel 14:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The romans divided the whole peninsula into Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior. Then it was divided into Lusitania, Betica hispania and Tarraconensis Hispania — Miguel 14:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think we've settled on how to deal with the structure. I have a couple of good books on early medieval history; I'll try to make an article on Visigothic Hispania and will deal with the Al-Andalus article later. 213.101.36.85 18:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is already an article that includes a brief overview of Visigothic Hispania. See Visigoths. Craig Schamp 02:11, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

If you look at the Visigothic code the name called to the Visigoth land was "the country of the Goths".

Iberia was just a geographic location; Hispania was a province of Rome it was not only a geographic location but it had also a political and cultural tie to Rome as it was its province. Visigothic Iberia is the correct name to use.

Simple version

There are facts and commonly-held views in the Simple English version that should be here, and vice versa. Definitely a good idea to coordinate, as both articles are pretty mature.

Naming convention

Someone has changed the spellings of the names in the article to their Spanish spellings (Castile -> Castilla, Charles -> Carlos, Philip -> Felipe, etc.) but I think that it's Wikipedia policy to keep them in their English form. I could be wrong, but I think I read that somewhere. (Not that it doesn't bother me seeing "Joanna, Queen of Castile" instead of "Juana," but anyway...) Adam Faanes 14:38, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For things like a person's name I wouldn't expect them to be translated from Spanish to English. e.g. Carlos becoming Charles, if someone said the current King of Spain is John Charles the Second my first reaction would be confusion.

For place names I think the line is a bit more difficult. For example Seville is properly Sevilla in Spanish, and it wasn't until recently that I discovered that the Spanish city of Zaragoza is in English "Saragosa"

I would say that a translation be made in brackets after the first use so that at least people are aware that proper names such as these are actually different between English and Spanish.

--Colin Angus Mackay 16:00, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On Talk:Juan Carlos of Spain someone said "Wiki doesn't translate things into english, it uses the form used in english," which is a pretty good maxim, I think - it means "Juan Carlos" isn't made into "John Charles," which, you're right, would be kooky. But "Castile" is pretty clearly standard practice and I've heard all of the Charles's and Philips of Spain referred to Charles's and Philips. Adam Faanes 16:25, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Between Spanish Regional Languages

I just noticed that someone (an AnonIP) changed "Comunitat Valencia" to "Comunidad Valencia". My understanding is that both are correct in that locale depending on the language being spoken. The first version is in Valencian (see Valencia (autonomous community)) while the latter is Castillian. So, what is the policy on that. I would say to use the Valencian language version. --Colin Angus Mackay 01:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Habsburg history

I've been working on a history of Spain under the Habsburgs for the past several days. I have it posted under my user page right now (User:Adam Faanes/History of Spain#Spain under the Habsburgs. The headings from "The beginning of the empire" to "The last Habsburg" are mine; the rest are Miguel's from the Spain page) but I'd like some input on it before I put it up. I'm still planning to add headings for Spanish society and art under the Habsburgs. I'm pleased to see that someone added to the section on this page; perhaps my article could be a starting point for the separate article that Djnjwd asks for. Adam Faanes 15:23, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey. I was wondering what we plan to do about the Spanish Empire article. We might want to briefly summarize it and place that with a link to the Empire article on this page; the History of the United Kingdom series includes the British Empire as a separate page within the series.

We also have essentially duplicate articles in Siglo de Oro and Spanish Golden Age that both address the cultural aspects of the period. We should probably merge these two articles into one or the other and place a link to it with a summary on this page just as we have done with Visigoth Hispania, etc. The Spanish Golden Age is of enough cultural merit to warrant a separate article from the main political history (as a Habsburg Spain article would have) just as History of the Netherlands separates political history from the Dutch Golden Age. I don't know which article to merge into which, though.

Finally, I think we should figure out what the outline for the history looks like overall. I think that the Medieval history should end in 1504, when Isabella dies; though 1492 is a more memorable date, it seems somewhat senseless to cut Isabella's reign in half. Here's my two cents:

• Habsburg Spain (1504-1700)
• Enlightenment Spain (1700-1808)
• The Restoration (1808-1898)
• Disaster (Don't know what to call it) (1898-1933)
• Spanish Civil War (1933-1939)
• Spain under Franco (1939-1975)
• Modern Spain (1975-)

1598 and 1868 provide comfortable splits for those respective articles if needed.Adam Faanes 03:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The "Restoration" section needs to be re-linked. The title currently pointes to The Restoration, which is a redirect to the English Restoration. Is there an appropriate article that this could point to, or should the link just be removed? --Vishahu 00:55, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

spain history by veronica

Spain is a beautyfull country, and his history was extraordinary and also now, but a black history with the dictation time. But now is one of the most important country about them constum and their cultural sites and the general history about that. hello there how are you? well as for me great bye hope you like the information

Minor quibble

The lead section needs to be fixed. It currently is a self-reference to itself! It says: "This is the history of Spain. Its history is part of the history of Europe and part of the history of present-day nations and states." This is no good because we should not say that this is part of a series - that's what the infobox is for! Can I suggest that we fix the lead section to be more informative? - Ta bu shi da yu 18:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning the 'Spain since 1978' Section

The section at the bottom is in drastic need of a cleaning, and I have tried, but have not been able to end with anything satisfactory, as I do not know enough on the subject to make sense of what is currently there. Someone with more knowledge in this area needs to kindly step in and provide more organization. --RioBranden (13 July 2005)

Timeline

Isn't anyone interested in beginning a Timeline of Spanish history in the lines of Timeline of Portuguese history or Timeline of British history or Timeline of Canadian history or Timeline of Afghan history or Timeline of Albanian history or Timeline of Chinese history or Timeline of German history or Timeline of Ancient Greece or Timeline of Irish history or Timeline of Islamic history (I could go on...)? The Ogre 18:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Rename

I'd suggest renaming quite a few of the articles in this series, as they suggest articles about a former states (First Spanish Republic), when in fact they are just history of a current state article. Consider an example of History of Poland (1945–1989) vs. People's Republic of Poland, or History of Poland (1569-1795) vs. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Eventually those names must be given up to former state articles and current ones moved to History of... name.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Think this should be moved

The title is misleading, the entire article and most of the ones it links to are completely about political history. I think this should be moved to "Political history of Spain". --MateoP 21:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)