Talk:Battle of Teba

message: This article contains much inaccuracy and error and therefore should not be relied on- although it appears to have been disseminated widely on the web. As written, it is more concerned with  the legend of Sir James Douglas’ death in Spain than presenting an analysis of the battle between the forces  of  Muhammad IV of Granada and Alfonso XI of Castile  during the latter’s siege of the castle at Teba in 1330. 
The article is neither a critical analysis of the primary sources nor a summary of the current state of historical writing but is more concerned with creating a narrative strongly influenced by  19th century Romantic  phraseology and the sentiments of Scottish national mythology. 
It relies principally upon paraphrases of the mediaeval accounts, presumably borrowed, judging by the language, principally from the out-of-date and old-fashioned secondary accounts cited. There are also elements of supposition, embroidery and invention more appropriate to historical fiction, none of which have any place in an encyclopedia. It would be better titled ‘The Legend of Sir James' Douglas’ death  in Spain and incorporated in the article under his name.
The photograph of modern Teba, looking north from the castle site, is not helpful. It shows neither the valley and hills to the south which was the line of confrontation between the opposing forces, nor the castle ruins, which at least would be evocative of the period.
: On reflection, given that there may have been least two battles, it might be better to re-title the article 'The Siege of Teba', recounting all the various incidents associated with this event: Alfonso's strategy, the counter tactics of the Moorish garrison and relieving force and the major confrontations between opposing forces, including the death of Sir James Douglas- acknowledging that this latter is arguably the main reason why Teba is remembered today.
I have changed the image to a view of the castle from the northeast, used in the Spanish article.JF42 (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: Castello De la Estrella..  The Castilian for  ‘castle’ is castillo.  This has been corrected. There is no reference to Castillo de la Estrella in 14th century sources I have read, which is why I have deleted the name from the introductory paragraph. Any similar references in the article should be adjusted accordingly. A reference to the popular name is valid but should be used with caution and in the correct context
  
A small settlement in Andalusia.  Is this a reference to past or present?  Today, Teba is a medium size country town (c.4000) in the province of Malaga .  
At Teba in 1330 there was a Moorish fortress whose name in Arabic is referred to in contemporary Spanish studies as Hisn Atiba 
(e.g. Intervención Archaeológico en el recinto fortaleza del Castillo de la Estrella (Teba, Malaga) Julio de 2000. Virgilio Martínez Enamorado, Eduardo García Alfonso, Antonio Morgado Rodríguez 
[digital.csic.es/.../Martinez_Enamorado_Intervencion_arqueologica_en_el_recinto.pdf])
I have yet to see this transliteration related to a 14th century source. 
The Spanish Cronicas of 14th century refer only to Teba or Teba Hardales.
The defensive perimeter of the fortress at Teba is said to have been one of the most extensive to be found in modern Malaga. There may have been a dependent settlement known as Ostipo or Ostebba. 
between 1312 and 1350. This time frame does not encapsulate  an identifiable period in the wars of La Frontera. I have replaced it with the dates of the frontier campaign in which the battle took place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castello De la Estrella/ small settlement in Andalusia 

message: an open invitation to foreign knights   There is nothing remarkable in this. Within mediaeval Christendom, war was international, particularly in expeditions against Muslim states. Chaucer’s description of his Knight in 'The Canterbury Tales' shows this well. He had fought against the Moors in Spain, at Algeciras. In the 14th century, knights still fought as much for personal honour and out of loyalty to an individual to whom they had sworn fealty- as well as for material gain,  rather than out of any sense of national loyalty. 
the Crusade that King Robert had been unable to make in his lifetime   Crusade does not require a capital ‘c’ nor is the term mentioned in the sources. There are two versions.  In the earliest, Le Bel and Froissart have Bruce expressing a wish that his heart should be taken to the church of the Holy Sepuchre in Jerusalem. In Barbour’s  Brus, Robert Bruce  wishes simply that his heart is carried in war ‘against God’s foes.’  Given that Jerusalem had been in Muslim hands since the late 12th century and that Acre, the last Christian toe-hold in the Holy Land, had been recaptured in 1291, either mission would have involved fighting. 
 
they remained for twelve days to allow Knights from all over Europe to join the party 
I'm not sure this is how it is described in the sources. 
In 1328, Alfonso XI of Castile, on his coming of age declared war on Granada. Meanwhile Alfonso IV of Aragon was attempting to organise a new crusade among the Christian princes of western Europe and in 1329 the two monarchs formally agreed  a joint expedition against Granada. Philip VI, the new king of France, was approached along with the Kings of Navarre and of Bohemia. Despite avowed enthusiasm of all these men for the enterprise, the project came to nothing at which point Alfonso of Aragon also backed out. 
Twelve days would not have allowed news of the expedition to travel very far and for volunteers then to respond, even if there had been room on the ships for additions to the group. The purpose of calling in at Sluys was probably twofold: to proclaim Douglas' mission and the Bruce's penitence, holding court as if the late King Robert were there in person and also to get news of the planned crusade. On hearing that it had come to nothing but that Alfonso of Castile was still determined to proceed alone, the destination of Seville was confirmed.
The fact that Douglas had been excommunicated for his complicity in the mutilation of Bruce's corpse, expressly forbidden by Papal Bull in 1299, may have been relevant too. Although he does not appear to have been unduly worried by his excommunication, Douglas may have wanted to broadcast the fact that the Bruce's heart was removed according to the King's will. 
See: 
Sonja Cameron, Sir James Douglas, Spain and the Holy Land  in 'Freedom and Authority- Scotland 1050-1650.' ed. Brotherstone & Ditchwell, Edinburgh,2000.
Blanca Krauel Heredia, Sir James Douglas' Death in Spain,1330 , Scottish Historical Review, 69, 1990 April. pp 84-90
JF42 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish Knights errant 

message: It is important to distinguish between (a) the action in which Douglas died (said by Fordun to have occurred on 25th August), as described in a variety of Scots, English and French sources, and (b) the battle in which the Granadan forces failed in their attempt to destroy the Castilian siege camp and, having been driven back, saw their own camp sacked, effectively ending Uthman's   attempt to raise the siege. This is described in a Spanish source, the Gran Cronica de Alfonso XI, which does not mention Douglas by name but does makes oblique reference to the unfortunate death of 'a foreign count' in a confrontation on the river.  The subsequent defeat of the Granadan attack is depicted as divinely ordained retribution for his death. It is clear in the Gran Cronica account that these events took place on separate days.
The sources focusing on Douglas' death depict the armies arrayed in line of battle, with Sir James variously placing himself on one wing better to engage the enemy in view of all  or being given command of the vaward division- which traditionally deployed on the right. The battle described in the Gran Cronica began as a skirmish, masking Uthman's flank attack, which then developed into a running battle with contingents of both armies being fed piecemeal into the fray. According to the Gran Cronica, Douglas, if we are correct in assuming he was the 'foreign count', was already dead. 
This article at present confuses the two actions.
See GRAN CRONICA DE ALFONSO XI  by FERNAN SANCHEZ DE VALLADOLID
edited by Diego Catalán. 1977
JF42 (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The battle 

message: The Moorish king   Muhammad IV was not present at Teba. The ageing Benimerin exile prince, Uthman bin Abi-l-Ulá (Ozmin in Spanish sources), commanded the Muslim Granadan forces that marched to the relief of Teba. NOW AMENDED
a body of three thousand cavalry to make a feigned attack on the Castilians This is the diversionary stratagem referred to by the Gran Cronica of Alfonso XI; part of the attack on the Castilian siege camp described as taking place after Douglas, i.e. the 'foreign count', had been killed.
JF42 (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The battle (2) 

message: The reference to Sir Symon Locard is a piece of family folkore, as the citation reference makes clear, and has no place in the main part of the article. 
A short separate reference to it as a tradition associated with Douglas' expedition with a link to another article might be more appropriate. The amount of space take up by the current reference to Lockhart legend is disproportionate.
This article has been progressively re-written to distinguish between the historical event and the folkore associated with it. Given that there are still elements of dubious provenance waiting  to be excised, the insertion of this additional one is not helpful. As a reference of limited value has already been offered, rather than insert a 'citation needed' tag  I am going to excise this. JF42 (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sir Symon Locard

message: This qualification has presumably been added because Le Bel was alive at the time of Alfonso's campaign in 1330 and had indeed accompanied his patron Jean of Hainault on campaign with the English army against Douglas in 1327. However Le Bel's chronicle is thought to date from 1352-56,  25 years or so after the siege of Teba. While he may have heard about the Scots sojourn at Sluys and rumours of the debacle in Spain would soon have filtered back along the trade routes as well as, perhaps, with returning French and Flemish knights, that does not make his chronicle contemporary. As he was not an eye witness and his chronicle contains many notable errors, what is the value of this amendment? JF42 (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Le Bel - 'contemporary' chronicler 

message: <Spanish language page detailing History of the Battle of Teba>
www.lilliputmodel.com. server cannot be reached
This link appears to be dead. What is the protocol for removing it?JF42 (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Links 

message: The insertion of Robert Menzies name into the list of knights with a dubious claim to have been in Douglas' company seems to be based entirely on a C19th family history where Menzies' name is inserted spuriously into a version of Sir Walter Scott's 1834 adaptation of the discredited 16th century addition to Barbour's account of Douglas' death. These are literary details of which the 1894 author was presumably unaware. 
The anecdote seems to have been invented solely to explain the Moor's Head device on the Menzies coat of arms. This may have a place in Menzies family history but I don't believe it has a place in this article unless we expand it to include folklore associated with Douglas' death- which might not be a bad idea. As a charitable gesture we might add  Robert Menzies name to the existing list but the reference ought to be excised.
JF42 (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sir Robert Menzies/Clan Menzies Society 

message: The cutting and pasting of this unhistorical  material from the Scotsman is not helpful. The lack of evidence for Templar involvement is discussed in a previous section of the Battle of Teba article and the relevance of the Lockhart family tradition has been discussed on this talk page to explain removal of similar material. For those reasons I shall remove this insertion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Templar knights wore no family amoral bearings" & "Sir Seymour Loccard captured a Moorish emir" 

message: The section removed by 'Fionnachd' came at the end of  list of knights named in various unhistorical sources as being part of Sir  James' company. It read:
"but evidence is lacking. There appears to be no historical basis for claims that any of these men were connected with the Order of the Knights Templar, dissolved by Pope Clement V in 1312, eighteen years previously."
The purpose of this section was to deal with the insistence by some that the Douglas expedition was a crypto- Templar operation and also the tradition in some Scots families that ancestors were present in Spain. What Fionnachd's position is on this question, I don't know but it would have been useful for him/ her to have raised the matter here.
I missed this cut previously. It may or may not be connected with the recent insertion of two sections adding unhistorical material relating to the Menzies and Lockhart families but these additions indicate the value of the section that was cut. I shall therefore restore it. If Fionnachd would like to discuss the matter further I should be interested to know why he- or she- thought the section irrelevant.
JF42 (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "removed irrelevant reference" Templars 

message: The Scottish company accompanying Sir James Douglas cannot be described as 'mercenaries' seeing as they were on a specific mission to accompany Robert Bruce's heart to the Holy Land, or simply in "travail against goddes fayes" according to John Barbour. The expedition was an act of pilgrimage, not to provide military service for personal gain. Barbour specifically describes Douglas refusing King Alfonso of Castile's offer of "Gold and tresour hors and armyng," having arrived in Seville with "gold ynewch for to dispend." Jean le Bel describes Bruce instructing Douglas to take what he needs from the treasury to equip the mission as befits an escort for the King of Scotland's heart.   JF42 (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. Changed it to 'Pilgrim-warriors', not really happy with that either however, any with any improvement on that? Brendandh (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Brendandh, I would have to agree. "Pilgrim warriors" does sound like something out of War-Hammer. Given that the Scots fighting contingent seems to have numbered only about 30, they represented a very minor component of the Christian force. Do we really need to characterize them at all? It's a little vainglorious.  After all the Portuguese contingent numbered 500! I would suggest if folk really feel it's necessary, 'Scottish contingent' would suffice. I have to say I think it's not necessary. The main  article deals with that aspect fairly fully.
JF42 (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

text: On reflection, since the heading in the side strap is titled 'Belligerents,' the inclusion of of Scotland is superfluous. Scotland was not at war with the Kingdom of Granada. Douglas and his company  offered their services to the King of Castile for his border incursion into Granada, as did the contingents of 'stranger' knights from other kingdoms- certainly English and others, unspecified but presumably French, Flemish and perhaps Germans, not to mention the Portuguese and knights from other Military Orders beyond Castile. I recommend we keep it simple and simply state 'Castile'. As I said before, the presence of the Scots is self-evident within the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Brendandh (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Muy bien JF42 (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Scottish Mercenaries' 

message: Thucydides- "O'Cannaghan states that the 6000 Moorish cavalry split by Uthman were actually Knights, so I just clarified this."
I don't believe this amendment is helpful. To be frank, Callaghan's account of the Teba campaign cannot be relied on to any extent, since, regrettably, it is far from a scholarly treatment of the subject. There are many blatant errors and misinterpretations.
Both the 'Cronica de Alfonso Onceno'and the 'Gran Cronica de Alfonso XI' refer to Uthman's mounted force as "caballeros Moros" or "cavaleria del reyno de Granada." Caballero in this context is best taken in its older, simpler meaning in Castellano of Soldado a caballo. - 'a mounted soldier', 'a cavalryman.' Likewise cavaleria- Arma constitutiva de un ejército, formada por cuerpos montados a caballo- 'Portion of an army formed of soldiers mounted on horseback'
The chroniclers are not using caballero to state that the Moors were one type of cavalry soldier, or from one class, rather than another.
'Knight' in this instance is not a helpful translation of the word 'caballero,' bringing as it does connotations of a certain class status and social structure, as well as quality and weight of equipment, together with associated styles of fighting; all in a Christian context.
We don't know the social composition of Uthman's cavalry force. The organisation of a Moorish army was complex. It may very well have included mounted soldiers of noble rank, but must also have included companies of Guza - i.e ghazis, or religious volunteers from North Africa, who were under Uthman's direct command. In addition, the Moorish cavalry in general were lightly mounted and armed, in contrast to most of the Christian cavalry.
As for including in the information box partial figures for the Moorish army, the truth is we don't know the size of either army and so for a brief summary it is surely better to state that. The size of the various contingents mentioned in the sources are referred to in the body of the text and readers can draw their own conclusions.
Looking at the question as a whole, in what way does inserting this qualification clarify understanding of the battle? 
Respectfully, I suggest we revert to the former version, using the word 'cavalry' and omitting reference to the '6000 knights'
JF42 (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:    The 6000 Moorish cavalry split by Uthman were actually Knights 

message: I have reverted the  garbled and unsourced amendment of the reference to Knights Templars  dated 10:18, 28 February 2021
JF42 (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templars "They're ba-ack..." 

message: The statement in the article that "There appears to be no historical basis for claims that any of these men were connected with the Order of the Knights Templar, dissolved by Pope Clement V in 1312, eighteen years previously."
-has been amended to read "There appears to be a strong historical basis for claims that these men were connected with the Order of the Knights Templar, dissolved by Pope Clement V in 1312, eighteen years previously."
This is fun. I have nothing but time.  I love a good miracle as much as the next chap but if 194.60.198.51 (crazy name, crazy guy) would like to share that historical basis, ('strong,' mind you) we can discuss it. In the mean time I'm sure  they won't mind my reverting to the original.
JF42 (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As suggested previously, I think the time may have come to dispense with the reference to :Templars since the repeated acts of minor vandalism that it attracts is gradually becoming :tiresome.  Given that speculation on the topic is not supported by the canonical sources, the :subject is essentially irrelevant. Those who think it merits discussion might perhaps create a :section discussing contemporary folklore.
JF42 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  They're ba-a-ack II 

message: This amendment inserted on 29th November 2021 is of questionable value. As discussed above in the topic 'Scottish mercenaries,'  Scotland was not a belligerent in the campaign. There was no formal alliance between the kingdoms of Scotland and Castile. Despite Douglas' mission as the proxy of the late King Robert (cf Jehan le Bel), he and his party  were simply one more   company  of foreign knights among the various groups of 'freelances' that attached themselves to Alfonso XI's campaigns. "Supported by Scotland" is a grandiose way of describing the presence of perhaps thirty or so  knights and squires (Le Bel again). If we represent the Scots in this way then we should list the nationalities of all the other 'stranger' freelances. 
It might be more accurate to say "Supported by Portugal" who supplied 500 knights, despite   their services being withdrawn before the climax of the campaign.
JF42 (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "supported by: Kingdom of Scotland" 

message: It appears that the Logan family did not acquire the barony of Restalrig until 1385, fifty five years after the Scottish involvement at Teba. The title is not mentioned in Barbour's 'Bruce' and it is first found attached to Sir Robert Logan by David Hume of Godcroft in his 'History of the Houses of  Douglas and  Angus' from 1644:
 "Amongst the gentlemen of good quality, were Sir  William Sinclair of Rosline, Sir Robert Logan of Restalrig, and Sir William Keith." 
I have amended the text accordingly
JF42 (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   Logan of Restalrig