Oh boy, my English must really suck. That was precisely what I said.
Please do not play with semantics yourself. It is obvious that striving to create an independent state was difficult, did no happen overnight, involved a great deal of wars and the status of independence could be considered secure for some decades to come. That I have stated of my own accord several time or acknowledged when you so said. So I can't see why you insist on it throughout your reply, since there is no disagreement there. What I explained several times over is this: when you say Portugal was nearly absorbed back that is incorrect, untrue, unsupported by any fact and in no way contradictory to my previous remark. Using that expression clearly says that at some point in its struggle for independence Portugal almost failed, was near the disaster (and then that the Pope was the one who saved our independence). That is not playing with semantics; that is what was clearly implied. And regardless of the fact things might very well have evolved that way, that was not the case. Portugal was military superior to Léon and won the war. It was 14 years of struggle during which there was no point at which the Portuguese cause was nearly lost. There was no invasion of Portugal, there was no major defeat, etc. Now, does that make the cause absolutely secure from day one: of course not. That was not what how you put, though, and that was also not what I was contesting. Hope that is clear now.
I honestly don't mean to be rude, but it may simply be a misunderstanding of the term "absorb" means in English, especially in this context. I said that Leon could have absorbed Portugal back into the Kingdom of Leon. You have taken this to mean Leon would "annex" Portugal. That really isn't what "absorb" means in this context and I would have used "annex" if that were the correct term. The reality is that Portugal was once a county of Leon. While that doesn't mean that Portugal was devoid of autonomy, it does mean that it was a part of Leon, which you seem to acknowledge. Now let us imagine if Leon had been the victor at Valdevez. The Portuguese victory there was key in establishing the peace they needed for the Treaty of Zamora and to attain Papal support. A Leonese victory could have greatly upset that. If Leon had succeeded in keeping Portugal a county, then it's quite possible that Portugal could once more have become a vassal, effectively making it a part of the Kingdom of Leon again. This is what I mean when I use the word "absorb". I mean to reintegrate, not to conquer. Hopefully that's clearer to you, as it seems that you're getting a bit worked up by my terminology while not really understanding what I was actually saying.
By all means, I can continue to make my replies ever bigger. The military expedition of Valdevez was a big deal, since the armistice that Afonso VII signed in 1140 was successively prorogated until the definite Treaty was signed in 1143. Do not take it personally, but I suspect your only source for this argument might be wikipedia. I do not have access to my family's library where I'm staying these couple of weeks, but I can later get you some titles on this issue, if you'd like. I can tell you that both José Mattoso and Fortunato de Almeida would be great choices for detailed information on this period. The treaty did not happen after Portugal pledge fealty to the Pope: that's false. I don't know what you are trying to imply with Papal supervision there, so I'll guess that the wiki page may not be very accurate on that. As far as I remember Zamora happened because the Archbishop of Braga (The Primaz of All Spains) and ally of Afonso of Portugal managed to arrange it. At the table there was a cardinal legate from Rome, if that's what you mean. If you believe that to be an extraordinary event or the sign of anything ulterior, you might wanna research how many peace treaties were conducted through Papal mediation (not supervision). And I'm not trying to play with semantics: words do have meanings and implications when used. It was a three-way treaty in which Léon and Portugal tried to arrange their affairs, but the Church would not back it unless she could take advantage of it (naturally). So, in order to gain the support of Rome in the negotiations (and in the future) a clause was entered in the treaty itself having Afonso pledge vassalage to the Pope. In Zamora, Léon recognized both the kingship and the independence of Portugal and Rome did the same, provided Portugal paid tribute. Those are the articles of the treaty, not an opinion of mine. I suspect there might be some copy of the Treaty available on-line if you wish to confirm that. So your last sentence there is quite accurate, but then you go on with something of a non-sensical and contradictory thesis (if I understood you correctly); let's see.
First, I'd like to clarify that I rarely consult Wikipedia for anything specific. If I check it for anything, it's usually to see if that's where other people are making odd claims from, as that does often happen. I'm not unfamiliar with Portuguese history. I've entered several of these discussions before and have had conversations of roughly this level of detail before. Being a great fan of New World history, Iberian history is vitally important to understand. Cortes does not end up in Mexico if a lot of earlier events diverge. While I would be more than happy to review your sources, I have my doubts that they would drastically alter my perception of these events, as I'm already aware of their meaning and importance. You obviously have a different outlook on that, but that would be a matter of interpretation not facts. I dismiss Valdevez primarily because it was merely a step towards a more important event: peace between Leon and Portugal. The battle itself (or competition might be a better word) was not what confirmed Portugal's independence. As for the Treaty of Zamora, I think you're underplaying the role of the Papacy. That treaty confirmed two things: Leon would treat Portugal as a kingdom and that the Kingdom of Portugal would swear fealty to the Pope. Portugal's pledge to become a vassal of the Papacy was not a spur of the moment decision and was something planned and prepared for, so when the treaty is signed, Portugal's vassalage was a fact. Calling it "tribute" is quite an understatement, as Portugal surrendered a great deal of its internal sovereignty to the Church in the process and was much more vulnerable when the Papacy exerted its authority. This plays out quite a bit in the 13th century.
To affirm that a Peace Treaty (which is a legally binding contract per se), that was signed, confirmed and put into practice is some kind of a political juggle that doesn't have legal meaning: that is preposterous. Treaties are always eventually broken. This one was recognized and enforced for 25 years, which hardly makes it void. (You might wanna check the average duration of these treaties, you'll find this one is not the exception). Your attempt to dismiss Zamora as a mere political juggle with little consequence is, in my humble opinion, the confirmation that your understanding of this events is not solid. And as I've aforementioned Rome did acknowledge both the Kingship and the independence in Zamora. Now, the Bull confirming it only came in 1179, that is true. Which is easily understandable, as the Papacy was making Afonso sweat a bit and granted more privileges to the Church.
Now I'm not saying everything was easy by then. But Portugal won the war, the kingship and the independence. Had 25 years of peace to expand south. Alfonso managed to marry into the House of Savoy and to marry his heir with the daughter of the king of Aragon and his eldest daughter with the King of Castille. (All that before the Papal Bull). So yeah, really the recognition of Portugal was quite on the way after Zamora.
I think you've undermined your own point quite well. Your last sentence is essentially my thesis. Zamora was an important step, but not universal in scope. It essentially confirmed Portugal's status relative to Leon. Your statement that the Papacy let Portugal "sweat" is quite right. As you've admitted, treaties could easily be voided and might mean little to parties that were not involved. So without a papal bull making this international in scope, Portugal was still in a grey zone legally and was relying on the Papacy for its political backing. That is the point I've been pushing. Between Zamora and the papal bull, Portugal's political status was very uncertain and really in the hands of the Pope. Please note, so as to avoid any confusion, that I am not saying Portugal's de facto independence from Leon was in danger. I'm saying that their legal separation from Leon and their ascension to a kingdom was pretty much in the hands of the Papacy.
Since you say that the Peace of Zamora failed, you imply that the War for independence was resumed in 1169, that Léon once again threatened Portugal's indpendence. You further state Portugal surrendered and was given light terms. All this, in one way or another, is either untrue or misleading. I already explained this war to you, but will do so again. Portugal declared war on Leon in 1169, not the contrary. The causus belli was a dispute over Salamanca, we would obviously not start a war over our already achieved independence. Can you acknowledge the sense in that please? Portugal invaded Léon (namely Galicia), not the contrary. Portugal lost a major Battle in Badajoz and Afonso of Portugal was captured. Now, Portugal held a great deal of Galicia and Léon held our king. Peace was made on the returning to status quo ante bellum: Portugal renounced its claim on Salamanca, retreated from Galicia and Afonso went free. In my book that is not a surrender (in game it would be a white peace), but interpret it as you wish. The facts were those and it was not a war for independence.
Further Fernando of Leon was very ambitious to have himself recognized as Emperor, if he could have forced vassalage on Portugal he would have done so, despite family ties. This line that Portugal got off easily because of this and that, the marriages, the Pope, the Moors, is kind of misrepresenting. After a war that ended quite disastrously for Afonso as with the other conflicts (namely the War of independence), Portugal asserted himself by armed forced and due to Afonso's military brilliance. Now all the other factors can't obviously just be dismissed. Reality is always a complex mesh of causes and effects, and several factor have their weight and pull. But your storytelling belittles the essential and aggrandizes the accessory.
I once more think that you have misinterpreted what I've said. When I give a brief explanation of something, you can't make assumptions about what I'm saying and attack points I never made. I simply said that the peace established at Zamora ended, it failed. Portugal was once more at war with Leon and Castille. I didn't imply that it was an attack on Portugal's independence. You have thought up that claim by yourself. My point, and the one I explicitly stated, was that this was the last war between Leon and Portugal in which Portugal's legal status was not entirely settled. Portugal's somewhat embarrassing defeat after a number of successes could have had further legal consequences if things had dragged on. Ferdinand did, as you said, essentially establish a white peace with the Portuguese, and, as you also said, there were a number of factors behind this. That much I agree with and previously stated.
I understood you "That ended in ruins", as refering to Portugal's independence. So, my apologies for having misunderstood your point there. Relations between Portugal and the Holly See did go through a very rough path in the XIII century. That couldn't be more correct.
However what you go on to say is to the best of my knowledge false. So please be so kind as to point to a reference where that is stated, because I am unaware of such an invasion in the XIII century. There was no conflict with Castille during the reign of Afonso II that I know of. A minor one with Léon I believe that ended very quickly on account of the Batle of Navas de Tolosa (might wanna check that one, quite a piece of military history). In the reign of Sancho II the situation with the Church deteriorated and a Civil war ensued as the Pope instigated the King's brother to take the crown. Now, during that Civil war a Castillian army "invaded" twice to support King Sancho II against is brother. It was not an conquering invasion, it was not a war with Castille, and there was no border changes after the Civil War that I can recall. The King's brother eventually won the throne and reigned as Afonso III.
Now, Afonso III finished the conquest of the Algarve (1249) and there was a diplomatic dispute with Castille over it. He married a Castillian Infanta (1253) daughter of Afonso X, the Wise, of Castille. The issue was settled for the time being. There was a little bellic conflict some years after (I have no knowledge of any invasion here) and the Treaty of Badajoz was signed (1267): Castille renounced their claim on the Algarve. The borders stayed unchanged. The Infanta brought an inheritance of territory of considerable size on the left margin of the Guadiana river years after, when Afonso X died. So that's one border change.
The borders did change in 1297 by the Treaty of Alcanizes, under the reign of Dinis I of Portugal. There was a minor conflict prior to it, but no invasion documented that I am aware of. In fact there was not a vicotr or vanquished there. As far as I recall, the Treaty called for some land permutation so that the borders would reflect the natural geography and be, theefore, beneficial to both parties. Portugal did lose some lands in the southern border, but gained others in the northern one.
So if that's the border changes you were referring to, no invasion associated. I'm curious though as to this invasion of Castille in the XIII century, because I honestly never heard of it.
I'm glad that this misunderstanding was worked out. I also admit that invasion was a poor choice. Portugal and Castille did go to war, but the affair was not a particularly hostile event. So on that much I admit I was wrong.
No dodging, no misrepresentation. You said ipsis verbis:
"These marriages almost resulted in a union between Leon, Castille, and Portugal in the late 14th century. The Pope prevented this, but a succession war was still fought. During this war the House of Aviz takes Portugal's throne and things returned to the status quo."
By the last sentence you make it clear you are referring to the War of 1384-1411. Which was fought to prevent a union between Portugal and Castille&Léon. Which the Pope did not in any way prevent. I explained this extensively already. I am sorry, but bou misconception of the actions and implications of Papal policies in the political affairs of the Peninsula is staggering. The Pope did not prevent, the war or the union. Fact. Portugal once again fought and won a war. Fact. That prevented a union. Fact. For details please refer to my previous posts.
Those two conflicts were as separated as they could be! They were different wars, with different causus belli, with different players, with different reasons, with different outcomes. Just because they were subsequent, that the first influenced the second as any prior event influences its following, you making a big mess of two different wars and dodging facts saying that they were related.
First war (there were three successive wars actually): over the throne of Castille, fought by Portugal, Navarra, Aragon, the Duke of Lencaster and the Trastamara bastard. That was the one mediated by the Pope at a certain point. That was a clear victory for the Trastamara dynasty.
Second war: over the throne of Portugal, fought between the bastard of Avis and the now ruling House of Trastamara of Castille. Not mediated by the Pope. The Aviz bastard won the war. Castille eventually recognized him in 1411. (Tretay of Ayllon).
Might I remember you that that first statement I transcribed above implies that the Pope once more prevented Portugal from loosing it's independence in the War of Succession to the Portuguese throne in which the House of Aviz won. Since the Pope mediated another war and Portugal had to fight and win that war that you speak off to keep its independence your remark was completely inaccurate and misrepresenting. Understand if you will, I've covered that one point quite thoroughly.
You really haven't discounted my claims, but have once more only explained them in far more detail than is really necessary. The basic facts are this: In 1366 Henry begins a civil war in Castille over the throne. During this civil war Henry emerges victorious, but was then faced by a Portuguese claimant to the throne of Castille. This is the first instance in which Portugal, Castille and Leon could have become part of a union. The war was initially inconclusive. In 1371 the Pope then mediated a peace in which Ferdinand, the Portuguese claimant, would marry into the Castilian family, but would renounce his immediate claim. While Ferdinand did agree to this, the terms broke down and he chose another marriage. At the same time, an English claimant would enter the war. In 1372 that claimant, John of Gaunt, encouraged the Portuguese to resume the war as his ally. This proved fruitless and the war ended again in 1373. In 1379 Henry of Castille dies and the war resumes once again. However, Ferdinand abandoned that alliance in 1382, securing peace under the condition that his daughter would marry John of Castille. This was the second time Portugal could have become part of a union. However, the death of Ferdinand allowed John of Castille to press his claim on the throne of Portugal and war broke out over this. The result of this disastrous war was a new royal house in Portugal, which made the Castilian claim quite weak. Around that same time, John the Gaunt renounced his claim by marrying his daughter into the Castilian royal family. Most of the Castilian attempts to depose John of Portugal were highly ineffective and a long but uneventful state of war followed until 1411, when Portugal was preoccupied with attacking the Moors and Castille was facing internal issues.
So my entire point is this, the first war, that of the Castilian succession directly led to the second war over the Portuguese succession. Not only are they highly contingent on one another, but there was very little intermission between those two events. While I would agree that they were two separate wars, they were fought for the same reasons and by the same parties. Additionally, you continue to make more of my claims than I actually say. I never said that the Pope saved Portugal from being annexed in these wars. I only said that the Pope interceded to prevent the union, but the wars continued none the less. You have continually implied that I see Portugal as perpetually on the verge of annexation, but I haven't put that claim forward. What I have claimed is that Portugal's involvement with its Iberian neighbors did drag it into conflicts that could have altered Portugal's political status greatly, whether it be a reversion to county in the 12th century or a union in the 14th century.
That overall appreciation of yours does not find support in my own anterior posts, and they stand there for others to judge. In no place did I downplay the importance of the strifes and struggles between the Iberic kingdoms in their history. I am sorry to say that I portrayed those wars far more accurately than you did. What I downplayed was your initial impliance of Portugal surviving almost as a miracle and always because the Pope prevented it from being reabsorbed, or annexed, or united. Portugal's neighbours were pretty much impotent to do any of this things, because their relative forces were quite balanced. And you lack of understanding of this Medieval balance of power in the Peninsula is precluding you from a better judgement.
Wars were important, Portugal won and lost, it formed and forged him and his neighbours. Correct and true. Did I ever refuted that: no. What did I refute in my posts then? Was Portugal ever invaded between 1127 and 1384? No it was not, and I'll be waiting for you to point me to a source that says otherwise. Was Portugal ever endangered of loosing its independence during those Medieval conflicts? No it was not. I've covered this extensively and you yourself recognized that much in this last reply.
Not only does this part sound quite rude, but I think you are prematurely patting yourself on the back as well. As I've said many times, many of your "refutations" are aimed at arguments I've never made. You continually take one of my brief statements, such as "The Pope intervened" and somehow expand that into the thesis that "The Pope intervened in the war to prevent Portugal from being annexed by its neighbors." I'm sorry, but that goes above and beyond a strawman argument. That is just you debating with yourself over something that no one has claimed. Your explanation of events has been thorough. That much I'll grant you, but much of what you have said is either in accordance with my statements or something of a personal interpretation. When I say that you're downplaying something or seem opinionated about it, I'm referring to statements like "Portugal was never in danger". These broad assertions fail to say anything relevant and seemingly disregard history in favor hindsight. What was Portugal in danger of? Being obliterated by the Castilians? Probably not. Entering a union with Castille? That possibility did emerge. As I said, you can't use hindsight in your reasoning, only in your conclusions.
They are different ways that result in one same conclusion: loss of independence. And as that was always the point in discussion, the means by which it might have happened were irrelevant to the statement I was making. Portugal had a eventful Medieval history, has had his neighbours. What I tried to explain is that: many of those conflicts were never a threat to Portugal's sovereignty or independence due to the conflict's scope and dimension and that those few that were Portugal did manage to win the milliatry confrontation without endangering its position. Proof of that, once again: Portugal was never invaded. Now the exception to this that I clearly considered so in my posts was the war of 1383-1411.
Of course there were opportunities for things to have gone into a sourer path, they didn't. And what you knowledge seems to failed to grasp is Portugal's neighbours conditions, internal problems, other fights and wars and their relative power and strengh. That made the balance of power in the Peninsula. And the exception of 1384's invasion results from Portugal being in a Civil War and France sending armies to to reforce Castille. That upset the Balance, which made that moment the one true threat there ever was to Portugal's sovereignty and independence. Not before, nor after until 1516 was there any other such moment. Granted Portugal might had loss more territory or gained more in those disputes and wars. But my only point was the threat to independence.
As I said, I'm not arguing for a broad idea that "Portugal was always in danger of losing its independence." My original statement was that Portugal did get involved in some specific events (the wars of independence in the 12th century and the succession wars in the 14th century) that could have drastically altered its political status. These events go against an statement you made earlier in which you claimed that Portugal's neighbors had never challenged Portugal's independence prior to 1580.
Granted, the situations were different. I've been reading a bit on that. I had some notion of it, I think because of a paper I had to write a couple of years ago on the Aragonese expansion in the Mediterranean. I came across that info but it not interested me for the angle I was exploring for so I didn't research any further on it.
Your description was a bit off but I can understand some of the confusion. It is a fascinating topic though. I highly encourage you to read more on it if you're interested in Mediterranean or Italian political history.
The danger of loosing its independence was always clearly stated as the topic in discussion and I maintain that between 1143 and 1384 and after that until 1516 there was never a real danger of that coming to pass. Well, Portugal could have entered a union earlier? As far as I'm aware there was never any moment that the heir to the Portuguese Crown was a foreign monarch before 1384 or after that (until 1580 obviously). Well, all the heirs might have died or not been born, or the war for independence had failed, or the French might have blobbed in the Peninsula, or the Moors regain moment and conquer it all again.
This is where I think we can come to both agreement and disagreement. I agree that Portugal's independence was in no serious danger for quite a while (although I would probably list that from 1179 to 1369). However, we are talking about potentialities, not actual history. As I stated earlier, wouldn't a Leonese victory at Valdevez mean something quite different? Basically, I can't see how you can justify an event as important or critical to Portuguese history without acknowledging the possibilities it created.
What you consider hindsight I believe it's an analysis of the facts. In my humble opinion you resort to speculation to compensate for your lack of knowledge on the matter in discussion. And I am not putting myself on any expert level here.
You misunderstand. I do not criticize the analysis of facts. What I do criticize is using hindsight as your conclusion rather than your reasoning. Saying that Portugal's independence could never have been challenged because Portugal maintained its independence for so long is circular logic.
Why did Portugal maintain its independence? You give excellent descriptions, but fail to turn those facts into a real augment, instead falling into the bad habit of saying "That's how it happened and that all there is to know." My speculation is not due to any lack of knowledge (we could not have such a detailed conversation if either of us was lacking in that department). My speculation is born from a consideration, an analysis, of these events as part of a historical process.
Afonso ruled the country without any force preventing it from doing so from 1127 onwards, regardless of others recognizing him or not. He ruled in the land, the clergy recognized, the people obeyed, the nobles fought with him, he passed laws, and edicts. He ruled in reality so he ruled de facto. He was legally and internationally recognized as such ruler by both the claimant King of Leon and the Pope in 1143 in the Zamora Treaty. So that was when he became king on paper, de jure. My use of the terms is not loose and it's quite correct, if I say so myself.
I'm not really disputing Portugal's de facto independence in the 12th century. I would say it was a process, not a "fact" to be observed. However, you have admitted that Portugal's de jure independence was started in 1143 but not fully established until 1179, as the Pope did not legally promote Portugal to a kingdom until the papal bull was issued. This is why I call your usage of the terms "loose". You're trying to pin these down to a singular event when multiple different events contributed to both forms of independence.
Quite correct. Don't think I ever disputed this.
Fair enough.
The Empire of All Spains was an ambition of many Medieval monarch, that, to the best of my knowledge, only Ferdinand the Great managed to make a reality fo a brief period of time.
What you call Spain is a political union that resulted from the same guy inheriting both Castille and Aragon and continuing to use that ancient title that was ever an ambition and never a reality of Emperor of all Spains. The difference between the two is quite clear to me. The exclusion of Portugal from the concept of Spain dates from 1516 to this day (with a disputable 60-year-hiatus). Austria was part of the same political entity and the German states since forever until the dissolution of HRE in the early XIX, hardly a good comparison. Hispania is the root for Spain. They are different words with different meanings: Spain became since 1516 what we know today. Hispania was a word whose meaning never evolved in that way because it was not use for that purpose. As such it could be a viable option.
I'm not disputing that the title "King/Emperor of the Spains" was mostly nominal and had no real effect on Portugal. What I am saying is that it was an implied claim to unite Iberia. Given that this title was taken up by the Spanish monarchy and used in Spain's name, I think this gives us a basis under which "Spain", the nation we play in EU, can be viewed as the Iberian union, regardless of whether it controls Portugal or not. I do not think Portugal should inherently be included in that union, but I do believe Portugal should be considered a strong potential target for such a union, based on both historic and political factors.
Please do forgive any remarks you might take offence from, none of it is intended as personal. I must confess I grew a bit weary of this discussion, and maybe it is I that do not understand your points of view or cannot make myself understood. Anyways, that it. (won't review, so forgive also spelling and such)
I do not find much of what you've said to be offensive in any way. I think we probably agree more than we disagree. I do agree that this conversation has dragged on a bit, especially given that the original question is merely whether Spain + Portugal really needs a new tag or whether Spain is sufficient. In any case I do enjoy the depth of the conversation.
