It is an historically undisputed fact that Spain, during the "Dark Ages", was the greatest nation in Europe, a status it has never regained. Two questions come to mind: "Who gets the credit?", and "Were the rulers of Spain really Negro, or were they Arabs, midway in color between 'white' and 'black'?"
The answer to the first question is this: Since medieval Spain was a nation of Muslims, Jews, and Christians, it would be impossible to identify a single ethnic or religious group to whom all credit should go. The credit goes to everyone involved. However, there can be no doubt about the nature of the "driving force" behind the establishment of that nation. It was Islam, and nothing else.
It is inevitable that whites will ask the second question. Were the rulers of Spain really black? The answer is that Islam has always (well, all right, usually) been a color-blind religion, whose followers were drawn from all races, including Caucasian. It is therefore highly probable that many of Spain's Moorish Kings were ethnically "Arab", but in the case of at least two dynasties of Moorish Kings, the blackness is beyond dispute.
The Almoravids
By the eleventh century, the Moroccan Islamic rulers of Spain had become decadent and soft, and they were conquered by the "Almoravids", a dynasty of Muslim sultans whose original home was Senegal, in the heart of western Africa, thousands of miles from Spain. These people were black -- very black. Their rise to power began when a pilgrim named Yahya (the Muslim name for John the Baptist) returned home from Mecca and founded a new religious sect. In the Muslim tradition, this new religious view quickly developed into a new military campaign, and the sect burst forth from Senegal to become master of all of northwest Africa. This all took place within the space of 50 years.
Across the Strait of Gibralter, trouble was brewing in Spain. Initially, Spain had been a province of the "Umayyad" government, the world-wide Islamic government which ruled from the Middle East. The Umayyad Court was originally in Mecca itself; later it was moved to Damascus. For three centuries, an Umayyad Caliph, loyal to Damascus, had governed Spain from the city of Córdoba.
In the course of time, the Umayyad government in the Middle East was overthrown. Not long afterwards, civil war broke out in Spain, and the Umayyad Caliphate was replaced by "Taifa" -- petty Kings who each ruled small regions of Spain from their own regional courts. There were at least 23 such petty Kingdoms before the Almoravid conquest.
The Taifa Kings had ushered in an age of brilliant Islamic cultural revival, promoting poetry, philosophy, natural science and mathematics. But they were politically incompetent. The various Islamic states were constantly at war with each other. They unhesitatingly turned to Christians for support against rival Muslim Kings. This lack of unity and inconsistency made them targets for the growing forces of the Christian re-conquest of Spain.
By 1085, the situation had become critical. The Christian King Alfonso VI had won so many military victories, and was collecting tribute from so many Muslim Kings, that it appeared that Islamic government in the Iberian peninsula was about to expire.
In that year, Alfonso had captured the important Muslim city of Toledo. The Taifa Kings were desperate. They swallowed their pride, and turned to the Almoravids for help.
Yusuf ibn Tashfin
The greatest of the Almoravid leaders was Yusuf ibn Tashfin, who conquered an Empire encompassing all of Northwest Africa, and ultimately Spain. It was Yusuf who defeated El Cid, one of Spain's most renowned and legendary folk heroes.
Yusuf was called to Spain by the Taifa King, Motamid. Motamid was quite aware that Yusuf might usurp his own throne if he was successful, but he had no choice. The Muslims of Spain were in big trouble. Alphonso VI had beaten them so severely that he was literally on the verge of driving the Muslims back into the Mediterranean Sea.
Yusuf was nearly 80 years old when he came to Spain, but he still had all the powers of a young man. Although he was outnumbered by the Christians three-to-one, his indomitable spirit prevailed, and he miraculously defeated King Alfonso at the Battle of Zalacca. At that famous battle, 70,000 Christian soldiers were routed by Yusuf's army of 25,000 Muslims.
Yusuf, in accordance with a promise he had made at the outset, returned to Africa. The local Taifa Kings heaved a sigh of relief. They had been saved, and their thrones remained intact. At least for the time being.
The relief did not last long, however. Within the space of two years, the Christians had rallied, and Yusuf had to be called back. This time he stayed. One by one, he defeated the Christian generals. El Cid was the last to fall, and when he did, virtually the entire Iberian peninsula was under Yusuf's control. Muslim rule in Spain had been restored.
Yusuf thus became King of an Empire that encompassed a large part of Africa, and most of Spain. There is no doubt about his skin color. He was black -- very black.
The Almohads
Muslims consider the greatest of all the medieval Kings of Spain to have been Yakub ibn Yusuf (1149-1199 AD). He was known as "Al-Mansur", which means "the invincible". It is said that he never lost a battle. His Empire was immense, stretching to the border of Egypt. At the time of his death, at the early age of 50, he was contemplating an invasion of Egypt as well, which would have made him master of half the continent of Africa.
He began as the leader of a coalition of tribes known as the "Almohads". These were strictly puritanical and fanatically monotheistic Muslims from the Atlas Mountains of Morocco. The name "Almohad" is easy to confuse with "Almoravids", but they were two different groups. In fact, the Almohads overthrew the Almoravids in Africa, then went on to establish yet a third Moorish Dynasty in Spain.
Al-Mansur's father was of mixed race, and his mother was a full-blooded Negro slave woman, from Senegal or Timbuktu. Thus, Al-Mansur was at least 75% Negro. It would be hard to find a black American who was "more Negro" than that. But this black man ruled Spain during its most glorious period.
Al-Mansur came to power, in Africa, during a period when the Christian re-conquest of Spain had once again gained tremendous momentum. The Almoravids, like the Umayyads before them, had become soft and decadent. The Almohads overthrew them, first in Africa, then in Spain. Al-Mansur thus conquered and began expanding the empire first established by the great Almoravid leader, Yusuf ibn Tashfin.
As in the past, however, the internal strife between Muslim sects played into the hands of the Christian forces of re-conquest. There was a feeling of chaos in the air, and the Christians intended to take full advantage. Feeling that their day had come at last, they assembled a vast army of 300,000 men at Alarcos, intending to put an end to Moorish rule in Spain once and for all.
But Al-Mansur sent emissaries over his vast North African domains, calling for every able-bodied man to come to the rescue of Islam. This they did -- people of all races and colors responding to the call. At Alarcos, Al-Mansur dealt the Christian forces a crushing defeat. According to Arab historians, the spoils of this battle were "beyond calculation".
Al-Mansur went on to re-take all the principle strongholds of Christian Spain. It would be nearly 300 years before the setbacks to Christianity were fully reversed, and the Moors finally expelled.
Al-Mansur was a military genius, but he was also a patron of the arts and a lover of justice. According to J.A. Rogers, when he came to power, the first thing he did was to distribute vast quantities of food to the poor. He freed all who were unjustly held in prison and reformed the laws to prevent others from being so held. He initiated a vast public works program, rebuilding the cities and erecting mosques, schools, hospitals, and aqueducts. Some of Spain's greatest Moorish architectural works, including the Alhambra, were begun during his reign.
A fourteenth century Islamic historian wrote of him that "his reign was remarkable for the tranquillity, the safety, the abundance, and the prosperity that reigned everywhere...his religion was sincere and deep; and he was a great benefactor of Islam".
Al-Mansur was known, to his subjects, as "The Black Sultan".
There can be no doubt that Spain, during at least parts of her most glorious period, was ruled by Negroes.
Racism
A very interesting question arises from a consideration of the facts we have examined above. What was it like to be a white in a nation ruled by blacks?
I have found this question to be very difficult to answer. Light-skinned Christian Americans of Spanish ancestry to whom I have addressed it have little to say. It seems that the Spanish have very effectively suppressed the memory of their Moorish background.
The books I have had access to do not address the question, except in the negative sense. That is, I have not seen any books which suggest that Spain, under Muslim rule, was a place of misery for whites. This is not to say that whites were not discontent. On the contrary, white discontent was widespread and deeply-felt. But it appears to have been mainly a matter of injured pride, and not a matter of the sort of horrendous discrimination against minorities which characterizes America today.
The nineteenth century white American writer Washington Irving, best known as the author of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", had a deep and abiding interest in medieval Spain. He spent several years there, including a long period during which he actually lived within the famous Alhambra palace. His experiences during those years were recorded in two books: "Tales of the Conquest of Spain", and "The Alhambra".
If Washington Irving's descriptions of medieval Spain were accurate, then, based on his writings, it must be said that the sojourn of the Moors in Spain was a period of an almost magical fairy-tale quality; a time of general prosperity and happiness, albeit punctuated by periodic military-political upheaval. But the evils of racism, discrimination, and crime, such as are threatening the very fabric of America today, were apparently not anywhere near the magnitude that they are here. As a white American, I am somewhat embarrassed to report this, but I have, as yet, found no evidence to the contrary.
What I am saying is that it seems to have been better to have been a white living under black rule in medieval Spain than it is to be black living under white rule in America.
Posts: 107 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Y u tink dem a call it da DARK Age?
I'm surprised to hear the phrase "Dark age" still used to refer to medieval Europe. Most scholarship of the period have long debunked that myth.
Posts: 74 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Burhan: What I am saying is that it seems to have been better to have been a white living under black rule in medieval Spain than it is to be black living under white rule in America.
All of this relative! You have to keep in mind the cultural divide, the psychological divide and the ethnic divide because: 1. Anglo-Saxon peoples see Latin peoples as "less than" when compared to their own societal status.
2. There were African dynasties, Berber dynasties, Arab Dynasties, Syrian dynasties etc and they lived in certain locations of the country, i.e. Spain
3. Many Christian did work for the Muslims and they came to be as trusted as 'Muslim' or 'Arab'.
4. There were Christians, who according to their surroundings dressed as Arabs, spoke Arabic, and developed Arabic ways as part of that acculturative process. Why do you think El Cid was given his name? He was as brave as any Arab!
5. I would say that most of the dynasties of Spain were African (not in the Anglo-Saxon use and perceived notion of the word). African for them is black only and it has gone beyond that with modernization and certain designations as sub-Saharan, etc.
6. Despite the fact that Islam is submissin to God, there are those are swayed by colour despite the prophet in his admonition that the merit of a man is in his action, not with the hue of his skin. There are even some group witjhin Islam who dslike each other based on bad examples!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Y u tink dem a call it da DARK Age?
Dark ages interms of European prespective/ westren civilization. The Spanish phenomenon was not spearheaded by Europeans, yet it was the most dominant in every sphere. Therefore, due to ego, they must have been in dark ages. Which actually was not far from the truth. According to the Moors, they were called savages and antithesis society for they used to brutelly run down where ever they came in contact with. The last part of savagery, killing in masses and looting countries of natural resources, is still true, but now with a new twist and the application of "we are civilized and the rest of the world are not", the new WORLD ORDER.
Posts: 107 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:yazid904: 2. There were African dynasties, Berber dynasties, Arab Dynasties, Syrian dynasties etc and they lived in certain locations of the country, i.e. Spain
Since when did Berber and African become mutually exclusive?
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:yazid904: 2. There were African dynasties, Berber dynasties, Arab Dynasties, Syrian dynasties etc and they lived in certain locations of the country, i.e. Spain
Since when did Berber and African become mutually exclusive?
They are not. My bad! I was typing faster than the speed of light.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK for those who didn't get it, despite my comedic yardie persona, it was the dark ages because in no uncertain terms, darkies ruled, no apology. Get a sense of humor.
posted
Ironically, in current literature some writers/researcher have introduced a sense defying "Berber" vs African dichotomy.
Facts on File, for one, in its writeups on countries' ethnic makeup will use "Berber" Arab African as if "Berbers" are not African and usage of the word Africa did not derive from the word Ifriqiya (Tunisia).
What's worse is I find "Berbers" on the 'net propagating nonsense etymology for Africa being derived from aberkan, meaning black, and hence "Berbers" are not Africans. Needless to say their activists vacilate on who's a real African and why pending on the politics of the moment
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ironically, in current literature some writers/researcher have introduced a sense defying "Berber" vs African dichotomy.
Facts on File, for one, in its writeups on countries' ethnic makeup will use "Berber" Arab African as if "Berbers" are not African and usage of the word Africa did not derive from the word Ifriqiya (Tunisia).
What's worse is I find "Berbers" on the 'net propagating nonsense etymology for Africa being derived from aberkan, meaning black, and hence "Berbers" are not Africans. Needless to say their activists vacilate on who's a real African and why pending on the politics of the moment
I've also ran into Berbers who try to distance themselves from their darker-skinned bretheren for political reasons. A lot of it doesn't solely have to do with history though, some of it is current propaganda.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ironically, in current literature some writers/researcher have introduced a sense defying "Berber" vs African dichotomy.
Facts on File, for one, in its writeups on countries' ethnic makeup will use "Berber" Arab African as if "Berbers" are not African and usage of the word Africa did not derive from the word Ifriqiya (Tunisia).
What's worse is I find "Berbers" on the 'net propagating nonsense etymology for Africa being derived from aberkan, meaning black, and hence "Berbers" are not Africans. Needless to say their activists vacilate on who's a real African and why pending on the politics of the moment
I've also ran into Berbers who try to distance themselves from their darker-skinned bretheren for political reasons. A lot of it doesn't solely have to do with history though, some of it is current propaganda.
I think a lot of it has to do with the way that 'Berbers' are a distinct "minority" majority in Northern Africa. What I mean is that the Arabs have effectively taken the reigns of political and economic power and have therefore put the Berbers into the situation of being like a minority group even though they are the majority. That coupled with the fact that many Europeans view them as unwanted mongrels and you can see why they are starting to create a unique identity. While Berber as a language is not limited to coastal pale skinned Africans, it does seem to be a cultural and political banner that has been taken up by these people as distinguishing feature among all the other groups in the area. The funniest thing about it is that all the groups who have been ostracizing the Berbers have been ostracizing them precisely because of their black African ancestry, whether they admit to it or not. Therefore, Arabs treat them as second class and so do Europeans, not matter how much European and Arab ancestry or features they have.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Divide and conquer only benefits the conqueror/colonialist! We have many examples of same language peoples differentiating themselves in order to appear better to appease their supposed masters so they can be their lap dogs!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ironically, in current literature some writers/researcher have introduced a sense defying "Berber" vs African dichotomy.
Facts on File, for one, in its writeups on countries' ethnic makeup will use "Berber" Arab African as if "Berbers" are not African and usage of the word Africa did not derive from the word Ifriqiya (Tunisia).
What's worse is I find "Berbers" on the 'net propagating nonsense etymology for Africa being derived from aberkan, meaning black, and hence "Berbers" are not Africans. Needless to say their activists vacilate on who's a real African and why pending on the politics of the moment
Hello,
I am certainly not a historian, but if we look the earliest discriptions of regions in recent history, it is clear that the Berbers, although a mixed stock interms of pigmentation, were generally brown skinned people. The white Pigmentation has increased during the Islamic rule were, among other ethnicities, many slavs were brought to the region as slaves and the place become a melting pot. In Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, recorded mid first century during the reign of Neo by a roman citizen from egypt, the lands between Axum and Azania, present day eastern coast of the horn, were called the other Berber country with their capital at Malao or Berbera-named after the people themselves. With their general phenotype and asorted pigmentation, dominated by brown skin, it is clear why they were called the other Berbers parallel to what you will find in berbers to the north.
Posts: 107 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, of course, that "Berber" and "Arab" are politico-lingual codewords in North Africa. Both "Berber" and "Arab" descend from indigenous populations found in the region when the Islamic conquest impressed Arabic language and culture on the defeated.
Even of the later Beni Hilal, Beni Sulaym, and Beni Hassan, none of them escaped "Berber" intermarriage (true though, the Beni Hassan are visciously anti-black but they're way down in Mauritania not along the Mediterranean littoral where the "Berber" vs "Arab" civil war is happening).
In my life I've found the "Arab" North African more ready to speak of their ties to blacks than "Berber" North Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I think a lot of it has to do with the way that 'Berbers' are a distinct "minority" majority in Northern Africa. What I mean is that the Arabs have effectively taken the reigns of political and economic power and have therefore put the Berbers into the situation of being like a minority group even though they are the majority. . . . The funniest thing about it is that all the groups who have been ostracizing the Berbers have been ostracizing them precisely because of their black African ancestry, whether they admit to it or not. Therefore, Arabs treat them as second class and so do Europeans, not matter how much European and Arab ancestry or features they have.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: OK for those who didn't get it, despite my comedic yardie persona, it was the dark ages because in no uncertain terms, darkies ruled, no apology. Get a sense of humor.
Hey I got it alTakruri. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My guess is that John Canoe / Junkanu is what ol' ImageMaster DougM may have in mind. To me it's a tad hyperdiffusionist that stiltwalking be an African (Dogon) only invention.
But then, what makes my opinion better than anyone else's fact based opinion?
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Here is something I found today. It is another possible example of the African legacy in Spain.
Stilt walkers in the Spanish procession of Mary Magdelene:
Do you have any 'possible' African example(s) from where this legacy sprang?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ironically, in current literature some writers/researcher have introduced a sense defying "Berber" vs African dichotomy.
Facts on File, for one, in its writeups on countries' ethnic makeup will use "Berber" Arab African as if "Berbers" are not African and usage of the word Africa did not derive from the word Ifriqiya (Tunisia).
What's worse is I find "Berbers" on the 'net propagating nonsense etymology for Africa being derived from aberkan, meaning black, and hence "Berbers" are not Africans. Needless to say their activists vacilate on who's a real African and why pending on the politics of the moment
Hello,
I am certainly not a historian, but if we look the earliest discriptions of regions in recent history, it is clear that the Berbers, although a mixed stock interms of pigmentation, were generally brown skinned people. The white Pigmentation has increased during the Islamic rule were, among other ethnicities, many slavs were brought to the region as slaves and the place become a melting pot. In Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, recorded mid first century during the reign of Neo by a roman citizen from egypt, the lands between Axum and Azania, present day eastern coast of the horn, were called the other Berber country with their capital at Malao or Berbera-named after the people themselves. With their general phenotype and asorted pigmentation, dominated by brown skin, it is clear why they were called the other Berbers parallel to what you will find in berbers to the north.
Actually it was not a roman citizen but an unknown greek belonging to the ptolemy elite of Egypt that traveled down the read sea. Concerning the berber land between Axum and Azania i think the ptolemy guy called todays berbera port in northern somalia as Malaô, the Arabs during the middle ages also reffered to the land between the al-habasha and the Zanj being inhabitated by berbers. Ibn Wadîh al-Ya'qûbî who was a 9th century historiographer described that the al-habasha lived in a land just a bit northwest of the berbers and the berbers lived closer to the "Zanj". Actually it wasn't untill recently that the arabs started to call Somalis as Somalis, for most times they reffered to somalis as berbers and sometimes called somalis habesha. Also Ibn Battuta who traveled alot around the known world described the land between Zeyla and Maqdashah (Moqdishu) is inhabitated by the berbers. Funny thing is he himself was an arabized berber from Tunisia.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[/qb][/QUOTE]Actually it was not a roman citizen but an unknown greek belonging to the ptolemy elite of Egypt that traveled down the read sea. Concerning the berber land between Axum and Azania i think the ptolemy guy called todays berbera port in northern somalia as Malaô[/QB][/QUOTE]
Hello, You are right Yonis, and in fact what I wanted to say was that he was indeed a Greek citizen from Egypt. Refering to Nero must have polluted my thinking. As for Berbera, the ancient name was called Malao and the people were refered to as Berbers. later on, particularly during the early Islamic times, Malao was changed to Berbera in reference to the people who were perceived to be Berbers. Both Berbera and Zaylac, or Avalites as it was known in earlier times, become famous for their slave trade to Arabia in general and particularly yemen. Needles to say that the slaves were of christian Abyssinians.
In either case, the people both before Islam and during the middle ages, were refered to as Berbers.
Posts: 107 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually it was not a roman citizen but an unknown greek belonging to the ptolemy elite of Egypt that traveled down the read sea. Concerning the berber land between Axum and Azania i think the ptolemy guy called todays berbera port in northern somalia as Malaô
Hello, You are right Yonis, and in fact what I wanted to say was that he was indeed a Greek citizen from Egypt. Refering to Nero must have polluted my thinking. As for Berbera, the ancient name was called Malao and the people were refered to as Berbers. later on, particularly during the early Islamic times, Malao was changed to Berbera in reference to the people who were perceived to be Berbers. Both Berbera and Zaylac, or Avalites as it was known in earlier times, become famous for their slave trade to Arabia in general and particularly yemen. Needles to say that the slaves were of christian Abyssinians.
In either case, the people both before Islam and during the middle ages, were refered to as Berbers.
No, actually they were predominantly of Nilotic origin from Ethiopia's Western borderlands with what is now Sudan (see Pankhurst, "Ethiopian Borderlands") and people from the Southwestern periphery of Ethiopian around and south of Ennarya. These peoples were not Christians but followers of native traditional religions, although some of the Southwesterners were probably Muslim during the Medieval period. Later in the 19th century, the source of these slaves spread and grew to include the largely pagan (but also Christian and Muslim) Gurage and Oromos of the Southwest and South (respectively). There were, of course, some of Christian origin throughout this period, but not really in significant numbers with the exception of during the war with Adal under Ahmed Gragn (1527-1541), when many Christians were enslaved and (mainly temporarily) converted. Prior to that, it was mainly the Muslim and pagan areas that were on the losing side and therefore who were the source of slaves (many of campaigns make reference to taking slaves and prisoners from defeated peoples).
quote: Across the Strait of Gibralter, trouble was brewing in Spain. Initially, Spain had been a province of the "Umayyad" government, the world-wide Islamic government which ruled from the Middle East. The Umayyad Court was originally in Mecca itself; later it was moved to Damascus. For three centuries, an Umayyad Caliph, loyal to Damascus, had governed Spain from the city of Córdoba.
A bit misleading. It was indeed an Umayyad province from its conquest until 750 when the dynasty was overthrown, but after that, the Abbasids came to power, moved the capital to Baghdad, and the Umayyads fled to Spain, where they took over and ruled from Cordoba (QurTuba) for the next 300 years, not as a province of the Abbasids, but as an independent state.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: "Who was responsible for the glory of medieval Spain?"
The Spanish people...
Yes! in that the people were born in Spain and therfore Spaniards.
If Muslim Spain was 711-1492, then medieval Spain was within what time period? Just to get a sense of reference here!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I prefer the term Muslim Iberia my self, since Spain, at least to me, is a country which only appeared in the 15th century (at best!), and thus it disregards Portugal. Though, Hispania (from where Spain comes from) was the same as Iberia. One can use that as well.
Another important fact is that Iberia was never all Muslim, and that after the early 13th century, only a quite small part of it was. And that by the 11th century, around half of it wasn't Muslim too.
This is a good map.
Anyway, by Medieval Spain I guess the op was talking about Al-Andalus (the part of Iberia under Islamic rule). Well, it's glory was due the important cultural exchange that its conquest by Muslims brought. So they were the catalyst. As to its glory, it belongs to all people who inhabited the area. Certanly it's impact reflected upon the Christian Kingdoms who eventually reconquered everything. The great achievement of the Discoveries was in no doubt influenced by this occupation.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: This is a good map.
I think it's terrible. I'm extremely interested in E3b2 and I have read quite a bit about the history of Iberia. The part in yellow, which is labeled "voor 914", which I suppose means "by 914", should read "never conquered". It also depicts north Portugal as being controlled up to 1080, when in fact it became independent around 870. This last difference is very notable: according to the map, north Portugal was controlled for 350 years, when in reality it was controlled for 150.
Posts: 39 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, true. The map is good as in portraying how the Reconquista when about in a general way, I never said it was perfect. Some of the eras are also quite broad, specially the second, much more than 100 years.
Voor means before, though yes it's true, some parts were never conquered, Asturias for example. Others the hold was quite temporary. Also it wasn't as straight forward as the map implies. Coimbra my hometown had to be reconquered two times for example, with nearly a century in between.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No problem, Miguel, and of course none of my comments are directed towards you. By the way, are you a former Dodonite? I am.
One last bit of a problem I had with the map was the northeast. The region of Barcelona was controlled by the Moors from around 720 to 800, but in the map it is labeled as "914-1080".
One part of the map is very interesting, the green part called Granada. I was never sure if the remaining stronghold of the Moors in Iberia was a city-state sort of place, like Gibraltar today, or if it was an actual region.
Posts: 39 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
"I prefer the term Muslim Iberia my self, since Spain, at least to me, is a country which only appeared in the 15th century (at best!), and thus it disregards Portugal. Though, Hispania (from where Spain comes from) was the same as Iberia. One can use that as well."
But Hispanos/Hispanics existed before. Anyway, that answer was tongue in cheek, I gave my serious answer after.
"Anyway, by Medieval Spain I guess the op was talking about Al-Andalus (the part of Iberia under Islamic rule). Well, it's glory was due the important cultural exchange that its conquest by Muslims brought. So they were the catalyst. As to its glory, it belongs to all people who inhabited the area. Certanly it's impact reflected upon the Christian Kingdoms who eventually reconquered everything. The great achievement of the Discoveries was in no doubt influenced by this occupation."
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Yom: Prior to that, it was mainly the Muslim and pagan areas that were on the losing side and therefore who were the source of slaves __________________________________________________
Miguel, it called my attention to suddenly see someone from Dodona, because very recently someone posted a comment over at Dienekes' blog about something happening to the Biodiversity forum, one of the 2 daughter forums of Dodona. Have you folks lost your path once again? You're not going to become like the Jews are you?
Incidentally, I was going to rejoin Biodiversity but I just kept putting it off. I may have taken too long, apparently.
Posts: 39 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Burhan: Originally posted by Yom: Prior to that, it was mainly the Muslim and pagan areas that were on the losing side and therefore who were the source of slaves __________________________________________________
According to see Pankhurst, the slaves, sold and shiiped at berbera/zaylac were of christian Abyssinians.
Regards
Same source, but I have others if you're looking for further reading material. Pankhurst doesn't really comment much on the Muslim slaves, but he notes in most of the campaigns that slaves were taken (from campaigns against Muslim areas).
quote:Originally posted by argiedude: This is completely off topic.
Miguel, it called my attention to suddenly see someone from Dodona, because very recently someone posted a comment over at Dienekes' blog about something happening to the Biodiversity forum, one of the 2 daughter forums of Dodona. Have you folks lost your path once again? You're not going to become like the Jews are you?
Incidentally, I was going to rejoin Biodiversity but I just kept putting it off. I may have taken too long, apparently.
Probably. It's "Golden age" of the first 6 months of this year (or more strictly March-June) has ended. Its reincarnation is just a shell of its former self.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Then it was catching!! 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic