File talk:Portuguese possessions in Morocco 1415-1769.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edit War

[edit]

Given the edit war that has been going on here, I am going to reproduce the discussion that has been going on in my Talk page between myself Walrasiad (talk) and Bokpasa (talk). Unfortunately, not all the comments are signed, so I have taken the liberty of noting who said what. Walrasiad (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize the matter at stake: I believed it is critical the map should denote Ceuta, Bokpasa is trying to omit it. He also wants a map with some green inland areas colored in. I'd welcome other people to weigh on this.

(Reorganizing a bit):

Old Talk

[edit]

(reproduced from my talk page User talk:Walrasiad)

Hi!, I see you modificated one map, but Ceuta never was part of Morocco. <- Bopkasa

Hi. Ceuta was most certainly a part of Morocco before it was taken by the Portuguese in 1415. And it was a Portuguese possession until 1660. So it ought to be included on a historical map of Portuguese possessions in Moroco - indeed, the other possessions make no sense without it, since Ceuta was always a crucial part in the Portuguese strategy in Morocco and all its dealings with the Moroccan state. <- Walrasiad
No, Ceuta,Gibraltar and Algeciras was part of Marinid Empire, and this three cities also was part of Kingdom of Grenade. Are you say Gibraltar and Algeciras are part of Morocco??? <- Bokpasa

Gibraltar and Algeciras belonged to the Emirate of Granada for the greater part of their history. They were never held by the Marinids for very long, flipping back to Granada rather quickly. e.g. Algeciras was only in Marinid hands in 1274-1293 (as Granadan lease, conditional on intervention, sovereign title of which was not ceded, as the quarrel between Abu Yusuf Yaqub and Muhammad II made evident) and 1308-1313 (as dowry). At any rate, regardless of sovereign title, as a geographical area, they were considered part of al-Andalus, not al-'Udwa. Finally, they were never conquered by the Portuguese, so not really relevant. <- Walrasiad

Acording to this map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Conquetes_Saadiennes.PNG (made by Omar-Toons) and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marruecos1500-1515.PNG (made by Louis Massignon in 1906). It`s good!!!!!... Are you talk about history or geography??? <- Bokpasa

Nice maps. Except those are a snapshot of a very brief time at best, with very speculative contours. Portuguese did not garrison anything in the interior. They did try to cultivate clients briefly in the 1510s (which I presume that is trying to imperfectly show), but that didn't last. That said, that map serves a different purpose than this one. The 1415-1769 map is used in many wiki pages as a quick guide to locations important to Portuguese expansionism in north Africa. Indeed, some of the locations depicted (Graciosa, Sao Joao da Mamora and Alcacer-Quibir) were never held by the Portuguese (they tried, but were defeated.) Finally, and most importantly, the inclusion of Ceuta is paramount. Portuguese adventures in Morocco begin with the capture of Ceuta in 1415 - the official start date of this map, Ceuta was the linchpin to Portuguese strategy, and holding/recovering Ceuta was the central item of Portuguese-Moroccan conflicts throughout the 15th C., as well as the basis of the Portuguese claims on the rest of Morocco in its dealings, bulls & treaties with the Pope and Castile. This map is being used in Wiki pages on the Conquest of Ceuta and Portuguese-Moroccan conflicts. So the inclusion of Ceuta is absolutely necessary. Excluding Ceuta makes this map useless, and I would have to go delete the map everywhere it appears in wikipedia. Walrasiad (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ceuta, was not part of Morocco, read the original Treaty of Tordesillas, you can read "Reyno de Fez", not Morocco... and if you read some of "Republic of Sale",, are you sure, Morocco is the same?? <-- Bokpasa

"Reyno de Fez" is Morocco. The Marinid capital was Fez, not Marrakesh, so it was often referred to by foreign powers as that. Fez was also the Moroccan capital under the Idrisids, the Wattasids, etc. Are you now going to now go through all of Wikipedia and change all historical references about "Morocco" to "Fez"? Heck, even now its ruled from Rabat, so, by your logic, Morocco doesn't exist even today! (And "Kingdom of Fez" is not a name ever used by Moroccans themselves; the country didn't have a name; the only title of the Marinid ruler was the old Almoravid one of amir al-musilaimin, "Prince of the Muslims"). Yes, the Marinid state had administrative sub-divisions and lordships, with greater-or-lesser degrees of autonomy. In times of trouble and instability, local governors would often act on their own, regardless of what the Marinid ruler said. But that was true of every kingdom at the time. In 1415, Ceuta, Tangier and Asilah were part of a single vilayat, governed by the Marinid sub-lord Salah ibn Salah. Walrasiad (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Talk (from July 2)

[edit]
I don't particularly understand Bopkasa's reasoning in this matter (unless it's motivated by Spanish nationalism)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
“ Are you now going to now go through all of Wikipedia and change all historical references about "Morocco" to "Fez"? ” -> He already did, and got suspended on many WP's because of that!! :D
Omar-Toons (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eppur si muove

The reasoning it`s (July 6 2011)

[edit]

-- 16:41, 6 July 2011 User:Bokpasa

Walrasiad replies: Huh? What sort of reasoning is that? Morocco, not merely Ceuta, was part of the Roman Empire, Byzantine empire, Ummayad Caliphate, Idrisid caliphate, Fatimid Caliphate, Almoravid emirate, Almohad Caliphate, Marinid emirate, etc. Ceuta, Tangiers, Fez, etc. were under the same jurisdiction.

  • Visigoths didn't hold Ceuta. They tried to take it twice - the first time in 533 (but expelled by Belisarius the very next year, 534), and then tried again in 540 (expelled by 542). Indeed for the rest of the 6th C. & the first several decades of the 7th, the Visigoths had lost control of their own southern coast of Spain to the Byzzies. There is no evidence of any Visigoth presence in Mauretania, Septa remaining part of the Byzantine Exarchate of Africa and an important grain port down to the Arab conquest. Ceuta's destiny moved part and parcel with the rest of Morocco for the next three centuries.
  • The Umayyads did indeed nab Ceuta, along with Tangiers and much of the north Moroccan coast during the breakdown of the Idrisid state in the 10th C. But by the 11th, it was back in Almoravid control who, as you know, are from Marrakesh - Morocco proper, if you will.
  • For the next four hundred years Ceuta was in the hands of the Moroccan state - whether Almoravids, Almohads or Marinids. Of course, there were occasional uprisings and revolts (like there were in many other Moroccan citadels). But in none of these rebellious instances did it come under any Iberian power, Muslim or otherwise (although rebels often looked to sponsors, they were not under their rule).
  • From 1415 to 1640 it was held by the Portuguese.
  • Read up legal succession of states. It works by effective territorial control, treaty or surrender, not by "friends". Marinids succeeded Almohads, etc.
  • Finally, Spain didn't exist in the period we're dealing with. Nor did the United Nations. But I'll tell you who did exist: the Pope. And it is the pope who determines where boundaries are. And the pope repeatedly, clearly and unambiguously recognized Ceuta as part of Morocco, the seat of the episcopum Marrochitarum.

(Yes, it was the Pope who came up with the name "Morocco", because that is what he called the Almohad empire, the regni Marrochitarium as he put it, e.g. [Pope's letter to Almohad Caliph, 1246), because its capital was Marrakesh.)

Spain matters not an iota to any of this, since Spain isn't involved here. Portugal and Morocco are. And both Portuguese and Moroccan historians refer to the Portuguese conquest of Ceuta in 1415 as a Portuguese conquest "in Morocco". And that is how the terms are used.

If Bokpasa is going to insist on making a nuisance of himself, and render this picture utterly useless for any Wikipedia page on which it is used, then I propose it should be deleted altogether or removed from all wiki pages.

(not that it is a picture worth keeping, since it isn't particularly pretty, and misleading insofar as giving the impression the Portuguese possessed all these places at one time. Surely someone can come up with a better picture? One that includes Ceuta, of course. - Walrasiad (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bokpasa -- Unfortunately, your view is contradicted by common sense and accepted usage, which is that Ceuta is geographically (not politically) part of Morocco. The UK Channel Islands haven't been ruled from France for even longer than Ceuta hasn't been ruled by Muslims, yet no one denies that they are geographically and historically part of Normandy... AnonMoos (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you said before : Bokpasa's edits are motivated by some Spanish nationalistic PoV. Even he is blocked on Spanish Wiki because of that! I let you imagine that :D
Omar-Toons (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Portuguese_possessions_in_Morocco_1415-1769.jpg&oldid=56347858"