Talk:Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa

No surpise factor in the resolution of the battle

"Alfonso managed to cross the mountain range that defended the Almohad camp, sneaking through the Despeñaperros Pass, so that the Christian coalition caught by surprise and smashed the Moorish army that left some 100,000 casualties at the battleground. The battle was a bloody and decisive encounter."

This paragraph, which appears in the article, has nothing to do with witnesses accounts. The Christians sneak passed to the top of the mountain, dribbling almohads defenses, with the help of a local shepherd, and placed their camp on top of it for three days. The narrator tells us that the Christians were exhausted after the climb and that the next day was Sunday so they would not battle until Monday. There was not such surprise and even the Arabs made some kind of military display in front of their enemies trying to provoke them to fight. No surprise factor at all then for none of the combatants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.67.38 (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

note

Please note that the writer of the entry about the battle probably meant IMPETUS rather than INERTIA.

[email protected]

The numbers for combatants and casualties seems to be wildly over the top - rasmusdf

i agree the two numbers look too high. and too in favor of the spanish. the spanish article has even more unbalanced numbers, but i would have thought the spanish entry would be more accurate than the english, only cuz its part of spanish history. anyhow, from the start the whole article is unbalanced towards spain and portugal. remember: leave ur signature with name and date (dont erase them), so people will know when/who posted the comment. this way you all can also join the spain/morocco projects and discuss more accurate numbers 4.230.153.238 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

---

True, there is a primary source for the casualties at this battle. This article quotes it uncritically without referencing the true source. King Alfonso was not writing to wikipedia standards and can be excused for not being neutral. Twenty-first century wikipedians should know better, though.

Consider the following consecutive statements taken from the letter of King Alfonso to the Pope (not exactly a neutral witness). The numbering of the arguments is mine.

1) "The Saracen horsemen had numbered 185000, as we afterwards learned in a true account from certain servants of the Sultan, whom we took prisoner; the foot-soldiers were uncountable."

2) "On their side there fell in the battle 100000 armed men, perhaps more, according to the estimates of Saracens we captured later."

3) "Of the army of the Lord - a fact not to be mentioned without the most fervent thanksgiving, and one scarcely to be believed, unless it be thought a miracle - only some twenty or thirty Christians in our whole host fell."

The first feat is a logistical impossibility. The second is a demographic impossibility. The third can only be a piece of myth making. None of this is worth considering as factual. The only fact that can be gathered is that it was a crushing defeat for the Almohads and that King alfonso wanted to capitalise his victory with the Pope. All of which is not disputed.

I am only an amateur interested in military history and can contribute some common sense. That's also needed, but most of all we need some serious research done on modern reconstructions

Source: http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/tolosa.htm

82.26.31.163 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I have corrected the numbers in the table now, according to scholarly criteria.--Jordi (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is not good....and neutral it is not...

The iberian almohads could have not rasied 460 000 men for battle, even if presummably they would have called to arms all the adult male population of thery iberian empire (which had aproximattley 1 milion in total) .... The number is fantasticcly high, surely an exagerattion by some early medieval chronicle which ussualy tend to exaggerate the numbers of the enemyes.... Putting this into Wikipedia, i think, was not wise and correct at all...Logically, all the scheme should be reconsidered whith historicaly accurate data... Both armyes where about the same, in any case no larger then 30 000 men (from my historicall knowledge, i read several accounts), and the charge of the king of Aragon decided the battle in favour of the spanish. Macedon19

Hi Macedon19, which accounts? The sources of muslims and christians talk about houndred thousands men, the moderate dates of historians for both armies are of 60-70 thousands men for the christians, and 100-120 thousand men for the almohads. Can you give us more details? bye

Clarification needed

The crushing defeat of the Almohads significantly hastened their decline both in the Iberian Peninsula and in the Maghreb a decade later, this would give further momentum to the Christian Reconquest begun by the kingdoms of northern Iberia centuries before, resulting in a sharp reduction in the already declining power of the Moors in the Iberian Peninsula. Shortly after the battle, the Castilians retook Baeza, a fortified major city nearby the battlefield, and the key to invade Andalucia. Thereafter, Ferdinand III of Castile retook Cordoba in 1236, Jaen in 1246, and Seville in 1248; and only the death prevented him from crossing the strait of Gibraltar to take the war to heartland of the Almohad empire.

"...the death..." , well it wasn't Ferdinand's since he lived until 1252, so it must have been Caliph Muhammad al-Nasir's death, but how could the death of an enemy commander prevent Ferdinand from carrying the war across the Gibraltar Strait? The paragraph definitely needs some rework. Leonard G. 02:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Clarification given

Yes, it was the Ferdinand's death. Ferdinand III died in Seville on 30 May 1252, when a pestilence spread throughout part of the Iberian peninsula while he was preparing his army and fleet to cross the Gibraltar Strait. By then, the Almohad empire was over; and a new association of African tribes, the Marīnids, had taken control of the Magreb and most of the former Almohad empire was under their rule.

Portugal references, etc.

I edited the article to remove the incorrect sections that suggested that Afonse II of Portugal was present... he was not, and their are only passing references to Portuguese volunteers in the sources. The Portugal references need to be deleted from the frame on the right, but I can't figure out how to do that.

I also added a "stories say" line to the details about Sancho breaking the Caliph's guard. This reference is from a 16th century story about the battle, and has no verifiable basis in fact. Eye-witness accounts do not relate these details.

Finally, the numbers are really high. A new book by Spanish Historian Francisco Garcia-Fitz (Las Navas de Tolosa. Ariel, 2005) puts the numbers for the Christian forces at around 12000 (p.259), and he cites other recent studies which agree. This would still be one of the largest Christian armies ever fielded in the 12th-13th c. My own studies of the financing make larger numbers seem impossible. The Muslim forces were likely of similar size, perhaps slightly larger given their greater resources and mobilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.48.200 (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Arabic text

What does the text in Arabic script (معركة العقاب) read? What does it mean? thanks Arkwatem 14:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It means battle of Al Uqab (the hill) as it is referred to in Arabic --Zak (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Tapestry sent to Abbey

I have removed the unsourced sentence, "the tapestry covering the entrance to Al Nasir's tent was sent to the Abbey of Santa María la Real de Las Huelgas near Burgos where it remains on display to date", since according to Al-Andalus: The Art of Islamic Spain, edited by Jerrilynn D. Dodds, Bernard F Reilly, John W Williams, page 112, the tapestry in question was acquired by Ferdinand III and later donated by him. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Cabeza de Vaca

“Alhaja was granted the hereditary title Cabeza de Vaca for his assistance to Alfonso VIII.”

We need an explanation of how the epithet “Cow’s Head” became an honor bestowed by a king.

The wlink links to an article about a 17th-century Spaniard, Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca. A descendant of Alhaja? Who knows? — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 12:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

For those who have read this far and might be curious, Cabeza de Vaca is not in itself an honorific, it is the toponym, in this case probably a prominent hill feature, from which the hereditary title took its name, as in Señor" or 'Lord of' de Cabeza de Vaca. JF42 (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)