Talk:Kingdom of Navarre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Castilian conquest"

The article has makes many assumptions not proved and is very inaccurate. First, the kingdom of Navarra was aragonese, Ferdinand was king of Aragon (something that seems not to be important to the authors) and regent of Castile. It was later (in 1515) when Navarre became Castilian. ([[1]], in Spanish)

Also, there are many sentences that show a strong anti-castilian sentiment like: the Castilian occupation forces ..., and then it talks about a repression with killings (or not: a severe repression that forced many Navarrese into exile or even death) without citing sources for such a strong accusation, and manipulating the fact that jews and moors were prosecuted to try to prove their point, well: they were in ALL of Spain !!!, not just the kingdom of Navarre. Also: many? well: how many?, even death? again, how many? What kind of article is this?

BTW. All of that: completely absent in the article in Spanish.

Somebody should take a good look at the Wikipedia's NPOV, this article is lacking a lot of that.

--Ajrs (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write most of this article nor am I familiar with Navarrese history at large, so I can't comment on your general thrust, but re two of your concerns:

• You've added a merge tag to "Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre." As that article goes into far more detail on at least one of the actual wars, and this article is pretty long already, I very much disagree. That article needs expansion, if anything, not merging back. It's true that a lot of the early information is pretty much copied from this article, but the 1521-23 conflict, which I know more about, has detail not here (and furthermore inappropriate for this article, which is supposed to be a general overview).
• As for the Jews of Navarre, I think what the article is trying to say is that this was a *new* thing in Navarre. The Inquisition struck Castile and Aragon's Jews in the 1490s, but Navarres' were unaffected at first due to being independent. Once Navarre was conquered, their fortunes changed. I don't see how this is particularly POV, nor how the old wording would imply it only happened to Navarre.

I do agree that the part about a repression and exile needs clarification and citation, though the fact that that isn't in the Spanish article doesn't prove much. If anything, it shouldn't be mentioned not because it didn't happen, but because a repression is pretty bog-standard after an invasion and it'd be more surprising if there wasn't one. SnowFire (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Still the article is very inacurate, and as I said it doensn't reflect the fact that Navarre became first aragonese, then 3 years later, castilian. As for the other points:

• So far, the article Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre is exactly the same as history in this one, I don't see any extra detail, so it is completely redundant. Just the title: Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre, there are soooo many things wrong, and shows the language of a certain political thinking.

• The terms severe repression and castilian occupation forces are way too strong, not fundamented and clearly from a person with a strong anti-castilian sentiment. For several reasons: 1. As it has been noted, for the invasion, two kingdoms were involved: Castile and Aragon, Ferdinand was king of Aragon, then regent in Castile. 2. A powerful navarrese faction (the beaumontese) were helped by the castilian-aragonese to get into power. In the process, Ferdinand took the advantage to become king of Navarre: Ferdinand signed to respect the fueros, and control of Navarre was given to the pro-castilian faction, who signed obedience to Ferdinand. So, one navarrese faction kicked out of power to another navarrese faction, and for getting help from the outside they paid a price: become subjects of Ferdinand. The article seems to refer about that severe repression for the jews and moriscos, so, it is a pure manipulation of a sad event that happened (the inquisition) in all the Spanish kingdoms and most of the ones along Europe at the time. So for that severe repression, a historic source (not political junk) is needed: where, how many, etc. BTW, The inquisition didn't end in 1490-92 in any of the Spanish kingdoms, sadly it continued and was more ruthless later: against the conversos (jews that converted to christianism)

• I mention the Spanish article because it is way more debugged than this one (as it is natural, BTW), and you can check the difference in number of contributions and discussion about these and other matters.

Cheers. --Ajrs (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) Thanks for your response. I've changed the article like so:

After this failure, the Navarrese Cortes (Parliament) had to accept annexation to Castile, which agreed to keep Navarrese autonomy and identity. In 1513, the first Castilian viceroy took an oath to respect Navarrese law (fueros). However, the Spanish Inquisition was extended into Navarre; the Jews had already been forced into conversion or exile by the Alhambra Decree in Castile and Aragon, and now the Jewish community of Navarre and the Muslims of Tudela suffered its persecution.

I've removed the bit about the severe repression as uncited and clarified what I think the author was getting at with respect to the Inquisition. This better?

As for the Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre article... it's the equivalent of a small subset of the es:Conquista de Navarra article (only covering the last wars from 1512-1523). Arguably the article should be moved to a general "Conquest of Navarre" article and cover the history too, but eh. There's nothing wrong with having more specific articles. The es wiki has two articles, too - es:Reino de Navarra and the conquest article, so I don't think having multiple articles is bad here. As for the name... I don't see the problem. Not all of Navarre was conquered (the Bearnese stayed independent as a client state of France) hence the modifier "Iberian Navarre" and the Spanish kingdoms did it. Arguably "Castilian and Aragonese conquest" would be more specific, but it's good to keep titles succinct, and since Ferdinand ruled both kingdoms it is hardly false to just say "Spanish." Also still don't see why you think that it's just a repetition. Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre#1521 French invasion is seven paragraphs, while the French invasion merits just one paragraph in this article. Which is proper, as there's no need to go into great detail here aside from saying that it failed.

If I get time, I'll try and translate some of the Spanish Wikipedia articles and bring them over here. They do seem to have some interesting details not here yet. SnowFire (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snowfire, you have done a pretty good job, more neutral now.

Regarding the date it became part of Castile, should be 1515, that's what history books say and what Kindom of Aragon and Conquest of Navarre in the Spanish wikipedia say as well.

In respect to the Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre. First of all Iberian navarre already has the recognized name of Alta Navarra or High Navarre ([[2]]). 2 History books use the better term annexation than conquest, due to that it was really just that, as I explained regarding the factions (one of which had castilian-aragonese support), but I guess that's ok. 3. Spanish? Well, I think it is better to leave it as plain annexation (or conquest), we can get on all the Spain as such existed or not in 1512 discussion. The kingdoms of Aragon and Castile had been united due to the marriage of their king and queen for just 20 years, even Ferdinand, after the death of his spouse (Isabella, queen of Castile), was not king of Castile anymore, but regent (and after the death of his son-in-law: Philip I). So, I propose the more historic title of Annexation (or conquest) of High Navarre. Of course, it should be expanded and neutralized (still includes the severe repression thing and such).

I will continue reading the article and try to help you with the translation time/work allowing

BTW, as a historical note, it was Ferdinand who introduced in Castile the Inquisition (which was in Aragon since 1250), just to show even more how subjective, unfair and inaccurate was the sentence we have talked about.

And I see that the article uses the 1030 AD Perry-Castanyeda map I uploaded for some article (don't remember which one) about the middle ages, those are excellent maps.

Cheers. --Ajrs (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Premier independent Basque kingdom in the world?

As I saw that phrase I feared that this article had been vandalised at small scale... When I realized that it was actually being subject to very illustrative, coherent discussion I was pretty puzzled. It strikes me that with people who are so well-documented, a line could be added in such a prominent place that reeks so much of Basque nationalistic pollution; at least, from my point of view.

Apart from the "Early History" epigraph, the rest of the article, that is, when we actually talk about a Kingdom, seems to concede little or none importance to the Basque component. As you clearly state in the discussion, the language of the Kingdom was either Latin or Occitan, which means that, no matter how strong the resistance of the Vascones had been and how strong their numbers within the kingdom, they had assimilated the culture, if not of the Romans indeed of the Franks.

In fact, it is gathered from the statements about revolt against the Franks that Iñigo Arista simply rose to the position a previous envoyee of the Franks had held. So, he just became the king of a territory where most people of Vascone ancestry lived, probably together with many others from beyond the Pyrenees. Unfortunately this would also prove true of Castile, since at the time of its independence from León, most people in that mark came from Vascony, maybe Fernán González too. Would we say that Castile was the first independent Basque county in the world?

Now, do you reckon it is the most important thing to say in the summarising lines of the article that Navarre was "the first independent Basque kingdom for centuries"? How long did the Basqueness lasted if it was ever a founding feature? Is it in need for a historical background for more current affairs? It sounds as though there had to be a first Basque independent Whatever and we know not where to look for it.

However, the most astonishing of all is the remark "in the world"... Are there kingdoms in the Moon or is it suggesting that later there were other Basque Kingdoms in other places far away from the Basque fatherland? Whoever wrote it must clarify that; because Núñez de Balboa might have founded a Basque kingdom in Central America and I never heard of it... For the moment, I will erase that part.

I look forward to hearing your opinions on the rest of the phrase.

MiG-25 15:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I didn't write the controversial sentence and actually found it somewhat odd but mostly for the style.

Said that, Pamplona-Navarre was indeed a Basque state. This doesn't mean that wasn't romanized (in the form of Occitan language and settlements of "Franks" in several towns). The extension of Basque language in the Middle Ages was much greater than now. We know for instance that it was spoken in Upper La Rioja, where Navarre had its capital for a time (Nájera, Basque Naiara) and that ordinances of the city of Huesca (in Eastern Aragon!) forbade the use of Basque in the market.

Pamplona-Navarre like other Medieval states used Latin for administrative purposes (and later Occitan). Castilian was only used after the invasion of 1512.

I'm not sure what you mean by claiming that Eneko Aritza was just a Frankish subordinate (or maybe you are saying the opposite, I'm not sure). We have very few documentation on the period but it's not clear how strong was the influence of Franks (whose cohesion fluctuated greatly, allowing for virtually independent states to exist specially in the south). The case is that after Roncevaux or not much later, Frankish influence becomes null, up to the point that Pamplona is exerting protectorate over a fragmented Gascony (Duchy of Vasconia) a couple of centuries later, while Tolouse is virtually independent and Catalonia (Hispanic Mark) is totally on its own.

According to Mikel Sorauren, Navarre is an offshot of the Duchy of Vasconia after this lost its practical independence to Charles Martel. It was buffered from the Franks by this Duchy (when recovered) and from Muslims by the Banu-Qasi state of Tudela. Aragon (nuclear Aragon, around Jaca), while somewhat different (more romanized) was part of it.

Regarding the western borders, the only source is a Leonese chronicle of 905 that states it controlled all the Western Basque Country (despite what many maps over there seem to depict). Spanish historians have claimed that Leon owned this area. Their "evidence"? That certain Leonese king was married to a Basque woman. That's how some "historians" write history in an ofcialist line.

Castile: has no clear borders prior to its posession by Sancho III. Fernán González was named count of Arlanza and the Duero (Arlanza is the area of Lerma, just north of Aranda de Duero). Castile was therefore, originarilly the district (marche) of the upper Duero, a border region that Leon wanted but could hardly control. Castile soon separated from Leon and allied with Navarre what caused the dynastic fussion under Sancho III eventually. Castile was indeed partly populated by Basques (and Basque has indeed influenced Castilian language) but it was a new country of mixed identity and romance language, unlike Pamplona-Navarre.

Navarre itself, after having lost the Western Basque country to Castile and Labourd to the English, had a Basque identity until recent history. Even today large parts of Navarre are primarily Basque-speaking, despite the pitiful (genocide) linguistic politics applied by its unionist/regionalist government. Even in 1932 a great majority of Navarrese delegates to the Biltzar discussing the new statute for the four provinces had the mandate of voting for. Yet a good deal of them were coerced/pressed/manipulated into abstaining. To this day the people of Navarre hasn't been asked directly if they want to join the rest of the southern Basque Country in a single federal community.

Hope you see my point. Claiming Pamplona-Navarre as the premier Basque state for centuries (c.800 - 1512) makes total sense. --Sugaar 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Occitan?

AFAIK, Occitan south of the Pyrenees was a thing of local minorities, Catalan poets, and Val d'Aran people. The Navarrese Romance was similar to Aragonese language. There are authors who hold the language of the Glosas Emilianenses as Navarrese Romance rather than Castilian. --Error 20:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the exact source right now. According to M. Sorauren (1998), Basque was the main language among the people and it permeated also the towns that had initially been settled by "Franks", like el Burgo de San Cernín. I'm pretty sure that it was also in that book where I read the mention to Occitan or Provenzal but it surely refers to a later period than the one you are talking about: the Late Middle Ages, when Navarre had almost the same extension as it has now (but as soverign state, obviously).

The book has no onomastic index and it's being painful to read chapter after chapter to find that reference, sorry.

La Navarra Marítima has the text of several charters and other documents and are all in Latin but all them refer to the Western Basque Country (Vitoria, Donostia, etc.) and obviously are from before 1200.

Whatever the case, the use of Occitan in the late phase of independent Navarre was surely limited to the Court and some towns of "Frankish" majority. The bulk of the people spoke Basque except in Erribera for where I have no data (but they must have spoken basically some Romance).

The mention (from memory) said that Castilian easily replaced Occitan (after the invasion of 1512-22) while not affecting Basque extension intially. --Sugaar 23:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Bilingüismo histórico y Bilingüismo actual. Patrimonio cultural de Navarra, Ricardo Cierbide, sounds more like what I thought. Castilian replaced Navarrese [formerly Navarrese-Aragonese] Romance. It gives 11th-14th centuries for Gascon along the Way of Saint James, when it is replaced by Navarrese.

El conjunto de las villas realengas, dejando a un lado las comunidades de origen occitano [...] se expresaría en romance de Navarra y no parece aventurado pensar que representaría este tipo de población acaso un 20% o un 30% [this number should be qualified with a date], frente al de hablantes vascos de la zona media y las aldeas del saltus o zona montañosa. Esta población de hablaa romance [...] alcanzando su lengua el estatus de lengua oficial en 1350, como lo proclama Carlos II de Evreux con motivo de su coronación en Pamplona.

--Error 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I take your source. I can't find anything better. Just don't ignore the Occitan issue. Also, consider that this alleged 20% of Romance speaking Navarrese were probably from Erribera, a late adition to Navarre. Just to make it clear when you edit.

Also, can you clarify what Aragonese Romance is mentioned here? Aragonese language (High Aragonese), Aragonese dialect of Castilian (very unlikely: it's a Modern Age developement) or Aragonese Mozarabic? --Sugaar 11:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Aditionally, your own source says:

A estos romances habría que añadir el occitano languedocino implantado en las villas navarras del Camino de Santiago a partir de la segunda mitad del s. XI y que dejó de escribirse a fines del s. XIV, absorbido a su vez por el romance de Navarra.

This is not Gascon but Languedocin, a true Occitan dialect. Gascon is said only to have been important in the towns of Iparralde (what explains that is still spoken by a minority of Bayonese) but not in High Navarre.

I believe (but must find the source, so you can disregard by the moment) that before Navarrese-Aragonese Romance, Occitan (Languedocin) was somewhat official, probably under the House of Champagne or even as late as 1350, I can imagine. --Sugaar 11:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, your source (excellent documentation, thanks) says this:

A propósito del occitano, en las villas jacobeas navarras, al contrario de lo sucedido en Logroño, Belorado, Burgos, Sahagún, León, Astorga o el propio Santiago de Compostela, donde no tenemos pruebas escritas del uso de dicha lengua, en nuestro caso son cientos y cientos de documentos que lo prueban hasta fines del s. XIV. De este modo llegaron a ser cuatro las lenguas que se hablaban en estos burgos: de una parte el occitano junto con el romance de Navarra, el euskera y el hebreo. Este occitano caracterizado por sus rasgos arcaizantes, se asemeja poderosamente al languedociano meridional, unificado por los propios hablantes según unas pautas preferentemente de la zona de Toulouse, Rouergue y Quercy.

I think it deserves a good mention. --Sugaar 11:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

From the very interesting link you give, i gather that the official language proclaimed is romance, not occitan. Moreover it signal this language as unattested since the late XIV c. Do you have nearer data? Wllacer 12:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm conceding. I'm pretty sure to have read about the officiality of Occitan in some period but I can't find it, so I'm conceding the point to Error and his source.

I just suggest that the diversity of Romances, including Languedocin, is mentioned, along with the strong presence of Basque out of Erribera. All based in Error's source.

The 14th century is anyhow a very late period in the History of Navarre as independent state (9th-16th centuries, or a little more by each extreme of the chronology). --Sugaar 16:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's noteworthy that Teobald I of Navarre ordered the Fuero General de Navarra to be written in romance in 1238, probably one of the first non Latin written laws of a western country. A selected reading sample can be found at [3]. Thus, navarrese romance becomes the language of the law and, in a sense, the official language of the country. The other only sense in a medieval setting (the language of state chancery documents) i'm still searching Wllacer 15:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

About Western non-Latin laws, Anglo-Saxons:

One of the striking expressions of this Teutonism is presented by the language in which the Anglo-Saxon laws were written. They are uniformly worded in English, while continental laws, apart from the Scandinavian, are all in Latin.

[...]At the conquest, Latin takes the place of English in the compilations made to meet the demand for Anglo-Saxon law texts as still applied in practice.

And this article forgets about Andalusi law.

--Error 02:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is why I worded "probably one of the first". I had a dim recollection of the anglosaxon corpus , but also that it was the exception rather than the rule. Clearly, all this articles, not even me, do not take into account here the andalusi law (basically standard islamic law, of the Maliki school), which -in its civil parts- only applied to moslems. IIRC the muzarabs were ruled theoretically under the provisions of the Liber Iudicorum Wllacer 10:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

1932 Vasco-Navarre Autonomy

A bit of background about it. The project started as a common endavour of PNV (majoritary in Biscay and Guipuzcoa) and the Carlists (the same in Alava and Navarra). Its stated aim was to salvage both the foral privileges in the new constitutional context and to create the conditions to counteract the anticlerical policies of the II republic (it has to be rememebered that both were at that time ultra-catholic, if not outright integrists). At one point, both parties quarrelled (rather unsurprisingly) and the Carlist withdrew its support to the project at the eleventh hour. Just party politics started the project, just party politics drowned it.Wllacer 12:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have edited that part (nor I'm sure if it should be here, as it's long after Navarre was invaded). Just to mention that Sorauren considers that the majority of delegates had a mandate to vote in favor and they were pressed to abstain. So the people voted one thing (joint statute) and their representatives the opposite. --Sugaar 16:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The representatives were elected by the people (in wich referendum) to do that? Was the "autonomy" in his election´s program? Is the vote of a "delegate" from a city like Tudela (11248 people) equal to the vote of a delegate of a village like Alsasua (3330 people). It is nonsense to take in consideration this, if not "illegal", at least "allegal", project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.225.36.178 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Language

What was the official language of Navarre's administration until before Henri IV became King of France and Navarre?

Before 1512 the bulk of the documentation in navarrese offical archives (f.i. the "camara de comptos") is in "navarrese", a romance form very close to castillian (basically indistinguishable in the latter phases). But, IIRC they host also many documents written at least in Occitan and "Oil" French.

From 1512 onwards, for the "Ultrapuertos" residual kingdom i don't know for sure, but is has to be remembered that the "court" was in Pau, not in Navarra proper, so probably -i guess- bearnese or some other occitan dialect ought be the chancery language--Wllacer 07:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Did Basqu serve any functions of the State? Ahassan05 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)ahassan05

Role of Basque language

What role if any did the Basque language play? Did its rulers like Henri IV speak Basque or only Occitan and Navarese Romance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahassan05 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Baztan

The Baztan (municipality) is a mess - someone has added a lot of historical data, bordering on biographical material - badly ref'd throughout. Most of it has little to do with Baztan itself but before I go and prune it rigorously, I was wondering if someone would have a look who's good on the history side of things to see if there's anything that can be salvaged for this page? Akerbeltz (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Was it a Basque state?

Can we say that? Böri (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tricky one. Where and how would you like to say that? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Was it or not? Böri (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the question actually is. Does it say somewhere that it IS a Basque state and you're questioning the validity of that? Or do you wish to add a statement that is WAS a Basque state?

To a certain extent it depends on your definition of a state. Looking at the dictionary definition of a state, I don't think the medieval kingdoms of wherever quite fulfil the criteria we place on a modern state as a political entity. Notwithstanding the term is used for ancient structures such as city state and several kingdoms are listed in Categories alongside modern states. So it all depends on what it actually is you're trying to do. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Böri (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)