Talk:Crown of Castile

I have removed denominations in the infobox in galician, leonese, basque. I think it is unnecessary editorializing that clutters the infobox and I sticked to latin and spanish (latin and the romance vernacular (old spanish) were the languages of the royal chancellery in the Middle Ages. They are featured as note in the lead anyways. I am aware even this can be a dubious construct, as the romance vernacular and middle spanish were different from modern spanish and the Castiella denomination was probably also a common term in sources back then in the romance vernacular (old castilian). Supposing you need to include every language spoken there in the infobox brings bad editorializing (think Ottoman empire or Austrian Empire).--Asqueladd (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist, but I'm pretty sure Madrid was considered the capital by most medieval standards. Bertdrunk (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

By medieval standards? Not really. In the Middle Ages there were not a capital per se. The nuanced discussion about which city gathered more administrative power at a particular point in the Late Middle Ages is interesting (Burgos, Valladolid, Toledo) but it is not a thing for the infobox and Madrid does not belong to that discussion either. Madrid (which was a decent sized city with some importance previously to 1561 despite some views trying to portray the city as an invention of Philip II) had nevertheless just a vote in the Cortes just like more than a dozen of cities of the Crown. Later Madrid became the capital of the Crown of Castile in 1561, that's true, but that date falls outside the temporal scope of the article as it is formulated in its current form.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

By Medieval standards I mean wherever the court is, or was. If there was a seat, at least partially permanently, I suppose it could be cited. Bertdrunk (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

There was no such thing. If you are interested in developing the centres of power of the Crown of Castile, you have a decent source here. However, I am highly skeptical the content you can infer from the sources could lead to a explanation in the infobox that improves in any form the presentation of the article, and therefore I think it is most appropiate to deal with it just in the body of the article.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Thx. Bertdrunk (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Asqueladd, I definitely agree that my edit does not belong under the statement "The two kingdoms had been united twice previously:", so I have changed its location in the section. This article is not about the unification of Leon and Castile, it is about the Crown of Castile, with the invasion of Navarre and subsequent annexation of Gipuzkoa, Álava and Durango are major events for that crown. I do have some grasp of the topic, and this event, as well as the forced incorporation of these territories and the different status held by these districts in the Crown of Castile are conspicuously missing.

Also, I am not sure what your objection is to the dates. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Iñaki LL I am positive the year "1999" (the year João Félix was born) is a typo ;). --Asqueladd (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

O! Thanks. Definitely typo, you could have changed it yourself anyway. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Iñaki LL The article could use more information about territorial expansion and decrease in general (popping up in my mind, the protectorate in Murcia as satellite polity for instance) in terms of post-1230 and if there is a section about precedents also more succintly about events prior to 1230. One thing. Do you have any idea of which of the Durangaldea vs Duranguesado terms is the most common one in English language sources (particularly in this context)? If it were a toss, it could be worth to discuss the inclusion of both variants here.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is about its expansion/decrease, and its make-up, and its milestones, etc. If you think the protectorate of Murcia was relevant in the Precedent events please add accurately what knowledge you have on the matter if you think it was relevant for the realm.

Sorry, but why are you changing the topic to the name of the area of Durango? Please try to stay focus, it is not very helpful to keep hopping off from one topic to another. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean that I see no conspicuous attempt to hidden anything, since what you included happened before 1230, the supposed starting point for the actual stuff of this article (there were no precedents but the mention of the preceding periods under which the two kingdoms were ruled by the same king) and that there are more important events to add to this article (namely: territorial change after 1230 –including the particularities in the status not restricted to those territories–; Murcia, for instance). Now the preceding events section is unbalanced: it currently works like a (very incomplete) bulleted "list of". To the extent "a very incomplete bulleted list of events" (thus providing no holistic understanding) is problematic, now there is a problem where before there was none. It they were to keep different status under the Crown of Castile, it would best to weave that content in the main part, but anchoring it less to the turn of the 13th century and more to things that happened after 1230. PD: Regarding the name of the area of Durango, I am evaluating more recent changes but I don't have a problem to ask you (as you have a grasp in the topic) that elsewhere.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

As I let you know, I do have some grasp on the topic. The invasion of Navarre, the realm with which Castile had had historic, continuous disputes not only over its borders, but its very existence, is a key matter for later developments. Castile got access to the Basque maritime districts, hubs for the Castilian navy, and major arms manufacturers, as well as direct commercial access to Gascony, ruled by the Plantagenet lineage based in England. I am thus talking about a strategic event, not about the occupation of another territory in the south of the Peninsula. The occupation left a feeble Navarre, broke the multi-party alliance pattern held up to that point, thus allowing a (dualistic) Christian alliance under the auspices of the Pope against the Almoravids in the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, and the creation of the Crown of Castile. Please be specific on your claims, and keep it positive. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

What you mention (focused on the Crown of Castile) is the kind of content I would like to see woven in the "Crown of Castile from the rule of Ferdinand III until the ascension of Charles I" section, of course referring back inline to preceding events (when causality applies). It looks really interesting and in-depth. But still don't see it as a rationale to introduce an "open-bulleted-list-of-stuff-that-happened-before-the timeframe-for-this-article" section where before there was arguably none.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

the two articles are really similar and both should merge. The french guru (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess that rather than merging them, the page Kingdom of Castile should be trimmed to avoid too much redundancy. --Jotamar (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

yeah I guess you'r right. but the guys who did the reaserch will not be that happy The french guru (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Any explanation of why these were added? Perhaps we could find actual working links to add? Because right now this arguably does not look very aesthetically pleasing Aliy Dawut (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)