Talk:Battle of Guadalete

Edit Wars

I am going to change the troop numbers to "unknown". To assume that the Arabs had only 7,000 men is incrediably stupid because in a few years time the invasion of 732 in France had an expedition force of between 30,000 and 80,000 men and the 80,000 men figure was given by Muslim sources. This battle is not the only article suffering from extreme bias - the battles in the Byzantine-Arab Wars also mention ridiculous numbers.

If there were 80,000 men after this battle, then there must have been much more before because in any campaign, troop numbers naturally decrease due to disease and battle casualties. The Arab Armies at the time or any armies of any time do not ever include 7,000 Rambo's with guns beating thousands of "enemies". Tourskin 00:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But were there 80,000 men after this battle? Ancient historians more often overestimate than underestimate army strengths, see Delbrück's opening chapter in his series on military history (it should be in the first volume regardless of the edition). Jacob Haller 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Conquering a country with 7,000 troops, even if they were armed with Rocket-machine guns, is impossible. Logistically speaking, 7000 cannot take a country. The end?Tourskin (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

7.000 troops are a lot. When you say "take a country", are you tinking of a "modern and united country"? That was in 711 while the Visigothic state was almost broken down. Besides, what about Musa ibn Nusair and his reinforcements. So, those figures are about Guadalete/La Janda battle, not about the conquest of the Iberian peninsula. The conquest itself is onother story. Moreover, for the battle and during the conquest the invaders counted on strong internal support.(Threshold (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

On the other hand, 80.000 thousand Muslim troops in France? Who is seriously supporting that? It would have meant some 2 per cent of the whole Iberian population (just a rough estimation), and, by the way, by that time the Muslims would have accounted for well below 2 per cent of it. It took centuries for the original population to accept the new religion. In any case there is no connection at all between the two situations. Think about it, there is not any trustable written references on the subject; all we can do is to rely on demography and indirect historical clues. (Threshold (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

How do you suppose 7,000 men can occupy a country? Think in logistics!!! You need to place troops in strategic areas to guard certain bridges and passways. You need troops to act as scouts, troops as vanguards, rearguards. You need troops all over the country to collect taxes from the villages. The entire country did not unconditionally surrender. Nowadays, you can conquer a united modern country with 7,000 men, weakening your argument, by launching a coup de'tat. But there are no lines of communications, no transport no electronics to help let the population know you rule. Furthermore, there were 80,000 men in southern France at the Battle of Tours, Islamic sources say so themselves! I have the references, by Grant:

Grant, R.G. (2005). Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley.

Tourskin (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It has been estimated that for much of the Roman occupation of Iberia there was one legion and fewer than 400 officials to manage the whole peninsula. All that is needed is for your army to be the biggest in the area, regardless of whether it is 2000 or 20000. Then you send your tax collector to get taxes with the implicit threat that if the locals don't pay up the army will be there promptly. They pay up. The idea of a personnel-intensive occupation is a modern notion, in ancient times it didn't work that way. The Visigoths were not numerous and had little to no loyalty from Iberian locals. To put it bluntly, most Iberians didn't care who collected the taxes, Visigoths or Arabs. There was no local resistance or guerilla war. The Visigothic royalty was decapitated in one fell swoop and the Arabs just took over the machinery of state. It was an opportunistic conquest apparently. Probably the Arabs were just as surprised as you are that it worked. Jroo222 (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Muslim troops numbers

Why are some of you refusing to believe that the Muslim army was composed of nearly 7000? This army did not conquer the whole of Spain. It was sent with purpose of conducting raids and exploring the territory before the main Muslim invasion force arrived. They were forced to engage the Visigoths at the Battle of Guadalete, where they managed to bribe a part of the enemy army to their side, and won a victory, leaving Visigothic Spain in turmoil and disorder. They simply resupplied themselves from farms and villages which they raided, and continued their way to the north of Spain. They did not levy taxes on settlements and impose a system of government because it was not possible. After Guadalete, the Muslims were reinforced by troops from Syria, who engaged and captured the Visigoth fortresses that Tariq had bypassed due of his low troop numbers (see timeline of Ummayad conquest of Hispania). A year later, Musa ibn Nusair, the governor of Morocco, arrived with an invasion force of nearly 18,000 troops. As the Muslims continued their strings of successes in Iberia, more and more reinforcements arrived, giving the 30000-80000 soldiers that participated in the Battle of Poitiers. It's perfectly reasonable. Sherif Mohamed 10:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Troop numbers for the article should simply be quoted from sources, if there are any troop numbers in any sources, and, avoiding the sensibilities of hobbyists and reenactors, simply left at that.--Wetman (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge the only source for the battle of any reliability is the Chronicle of 754. All the Arabic sources are later (and often geographically distant) and legendary. All the other Christian sources are also late and legend-filled. Collins considers the numbers 7,000–12,000 to be fiction, since the Arabic source which gives it pegs the Goths at 100,000. Anyways, Collins suspects the actual figure of invaders to be about half that, since it began as a raid. There is no evidence to suggest the Visigoths could have raised a large army even if united, so a large Arabic force would hardly have been needed. As for the participation of Jews in battle: legend, just like the existence of count Julian and his daughter Florinda. Of course, the legends must be covered as fully as the history, but we need to make it clear what support exists for what stories. Srnec (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is the participation of Jews legend? They faced great extermination from their Visigothic overlords and had very good reason to assist the invaders. While the Muslims were still campaigning in Iberia, the garrisons they set up in some of the settlements they captured comprised mostly of Jews, because there was no doubt of their loyalty. Arabic sources state that Tariq was supplied with guides and even troops from this Count Julian. If true this gives more cause as to why and how Tariq won the battle. Sherif Mohamed 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to understand how Tariq won the battle: the kingdom itself was divided in two by a disputed succession (and probagly violent assassination-usurpation), Roderic faced opposition at Toledo (his erstwhile capital), the Gothic nobility was small in number, and it was easy for the Arabs and Berbers to decimate this tiny governing class when it was so divided. This is all speculation based on the best sources, not the later Arabic sources. The Chronicle of 754 is the best source for this period of Spanish history. It mentions neither Julian nor Jews. Srnec (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please try to understand how discussions work around here. We can't understand what you're thinking or what you believe without explaining your position. And we can't accept your position without providing us with evidence. The only accepted currency of evidence are reliable sources. Of which you have none, so we can assume nothing at this point until reliable non biased sources say otherwise than ridiculous results like "100,000 Goths defeated by 7,000 Muslims". Let me say this to those religious fanatics - if God was on the side of the Moors, why would he need 7,000 men? Why not just 30 men!!! Or no men at all!!!!! Tourskin (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There is too much reliance on Roger Collins and his obsession with the Chronicle of 754. The Chronicle contains much useful information about the history of Spain after the departure of Tariq and Musa, perhaps obtained at first or second hand; but for the actual invasion and Battle of Guadalete and other episodes involving Tariq and Musa it is very sketchy indeed. Although written within living memory of those events, they seem not to have fallen into the time which most interested the writer, which began perhaps a decade or more later. MisterCDE (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Collins's The Arab Conquest of Spain is the preeminent English work on the subject, is it not? The word "obsession" suggests you disagree with Collins, which is fine, but without secondary sources cited it is impossible to work with this comment. Is there an author, writing in English or Spanish, to which I could go (not already cited) to find an argument for the importance of the historical works Collins rejects for our understanding of this battle? Srnec (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning re the sources

Many of the primary sources for the history of Spain in this period are unreliable and contradictory. So there are schools of historical opinion, rather than settled facts. The article cites the Chronicle of 754, but that contains very little about the battle and overall conquest, and what it does contain seems in general unreliable, unlike later parts of the Chronicle. See the latest critical Latin edition (with Spanish translation and introductory essays): J. Eduardo Lopez Pereira, Continuatio Isidoriana Hispana Cronica Mozarabe de 754. Fuentes y Estudios de Historia Leonesa 127. León, 2009. As a consequence of this reliance on the Chronicle, the article must depend heavily on the interpretations of Roger Collins, but these are not universally accepted. For the particular period of the initial invasion, his own reliance on the Chronicle and disregard of other sources is idiosyncratic rather than definitive ... as are the ideas of Joaquin Vallve which, although intellectually stimulating, are now considered more in the nature of red herrings than true leads.

Regarding the many debates above re numbers in the various armies, it would be wise to remember that as early as the 14th century, Ibn Khaldun expressed scepticism about the numbers he was reading in medieval battle histories. MisterCDE (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: undo revision by Smec

The revision by Smec re-introduced statements which were plainly wrong, or unreferenced, or otherwise less than ideal. For example:

• "According to legend, Tariq burned his ships ...". I am familiar with most primary sources, both Arabic and Spanish, and I can find nowhere this is stated. Not the Mozarabic Chronicle stated to be the primary source for the battle, not al-Maqqari (who includes all the sources he was aware of).
• "The Chronicle of 741 is a near-contemporary Hispanic source, but it is a copy of the Mozarabic Chronicle for the eighth century and contains no original material pertaining to the battle." How can a chronicle written in 741 be a copy of one written in 754?? Anyway, it is not a copy, as can easily be seen by comparing the texts of the two. See the Wikipedia articles on these for references to editions of the texts, and also what the two chronicles are about. I repeat now: the Chronicle of 741 contains NO mention of this battle.
• "According to Paul the Deacon, Ṭāriq left from ..." No doubt Paul said that, but it is important to note that the same is reported by every other source Latin or Arabic which mentions Tariq crossing the strait i.e. this is not a fact about which there is controversy. Paul is probably the earliest source, but that should be in a footnote.
• "Alchadra" is some Latin mishmash which means nothing ... the Arabic name is al-Khadra ... which is why I used "Alkhadra", to match "Ilyan".

In my view, the whole article needs rewriting. There is much valuable summary of many primary sources, but also some glaring errors as shown by the statement "The primary source for the battle is the Mozarabic Chronicle". This chronicle contains, in the latest Latin edition, less than 10 lines about the initial invasion by the Arab-Berber army. A single sentence mentions a battle, probably this one. One sentence! and that only mentions a locality (and that Tariq won). That is not a primary source for the battle. In addition, the article attempts to cover topics outside the battle, such as biographical material on Tariq and Musa, and bibliographic information about, for instance, the Mozarabic Chronicle, when there are Wikipedia articles on all these. I notice some reference to some modern opinions that Tariq might have been Jewish ... this sort of mere speculation (because you won't find it in any medieval sources) is right out of place here.

So really, the article should be rewritten with material from primary sources mentioned first, and sticking to the battle itself (which may include preliminaries such as the crossing of the strait, and some mention of consequences). Then the article can finish with modern studies of the battle, which as I've stated in another section above, are just schools of opinion rather than definitive. MisterCDE (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• "According to legend, Tariq burned his ships..." See here for an English explanation of the legend. It is found all over the place, including in academic works. It originates in al-Idrisi, see José Antonio Conde's translation from 1799, pp. 37–38. The source of this legend has now been made clear.
• "How can a chronicle written in 741 be a copy of one written in 754?" These are not simple works. There are passages about the 8th century in the former chronicle that appear to be either derived from the same source as similar passages in the latter chronicle or to be interpolations copied from the latter (post-741). I have re-worded this statement, since I agree that it is wrong as it stands.
• "No doubt Paul said that, but it is important to note that the same is reported by every other source Latin or Arabic which mentions Tariq crossing the strait." Does every source mention Septem and Calpe? I think it is important to make our sources clear, since many of them are full of legends, including legends widely propagated but totally false, at least one of which you weren't even aware of.
• "Alchadra" is not a mishmash, it is a Latinisation, just as "al-Khadra" is an Anglicisation. It is perfectly acceptable, the source used, in this case Collins, probably uses "Alchadra", and so I have reverted you. I would not push this one, though.

What would a person unfamiliar with Arabic make of "Alchadra" ... "Al-shadra"? "Al-tchadra"? Better to have something which is at least likely to be pronounced correctly. MisterCDE (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• "This sort of mere speculation ... is right out of place here." Actually it is not, since Wikipedia is based on secondary, not primary, sources.

I disagree with you about article scope, and many other things, primarily because I know what this article used to look like. If you want to edit it you should avoid editorialising and back up your statements with secondary sources. Srnec (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I have no intention of starting an edit war. But I must disagree with you on a number of points particularly to do with the Chronicles of 741 and 754. I re-iterate that the 741 Chronicle contains nothing whatsoever related to this battle, and thus it is completely wrong to even mention it. That it contains a sentence or so ... on unrelated subjects ... in common with the 754 Chronicle merely points to a common source. And I re-iterate that the 754 Chronicle contains only a very brief mention of the location of the battle and its outcome, confined to a single sentence, so that any reliance on it in this article is completely misplaced (whereas its content on later events decades after the battle is most valuable). Maybe Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, but there is a large number of references to primary sources in the article. Let's get them right. MisterCDE (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"[T]hus it is completely wrong to even mention [the chronicle of 741]." I disagree, telling the reader what are and are not sources is valuable, as you can see from the al-Idrisi legend. "[A]ny reliance on [the chronicle of 754] in this article is completely misplaced". Yes, if the article is using it directly, but not at all if the article is citing reliable sources that are relying on the chronicle, and is accurately interpreting those (secondary) sources. Srnec (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarik took troops from Morocco to Hispania?

Morocco in 711? Could you explain that? It seems a bit confusing!

Hello random person, when they say Morocco, they mean the geographical region where the nation of Morocco sits today — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresatopi1 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)