Talk:Battle of Sagrajas

message: I have come across this article by acccident and I am surprised that there seems so little discussion around the points raised below. However, I must say that almost nowhere in English sources is this battle ever called by the name az-zallaqah, it is always called Sagrajas so I propose to transfer the text to the battle of that name. In addition the content definitely does not match the quality of fairness of other Wikipedia articles (oddly enough it resembles a number of other article about Moorish victories, though) and strikes me as mainly POV in style. Could the author please improve it, failing which I shall go ahead with changes in due course--AssegaiAli 11:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: This article is so, so messed up. With the numbers, the events, the details, everything! Where the hell would the moriveds get indian swords from?? and whats so special about them?! How is it that the moors numbered exactly half that of the Spaniards, and how is it that exactly 59,500 Spaniards were killed?!
It also says that Ibn Tashfin, gave Alfonso three choices, convert, jizya, or battle?!!!! Thats totally false, Alfonso was the attacker, he had the upper hand, Yusuf ibn Tashfin and Muhammad ibn Abbad didnt have a choice but to fight and hold their ground. The article also fails to mention Ibn Zirri, the ruler of the taifa of Granada, who was also an important part in the battle. "Alfonso lost his leg", thats just plain exxageration. Arabic sources say that he was badly wounded in his leg, but he nowhere do they say that he lost it.
This article is a fantasy tale completely, anyone with enough historical information, please re-write it.
* Now that this article is translation of the week - could someone please respond to these points that were raised anonymously?  I too was bemused by the term "Indian sword" - I'm just curious to know what they are.  Otherwise, I really don't have a feel for the factual basis of this event one way or the other - I would feel better if someone could respond to the above.   At a minimum - are there any references that can be cited?  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plate of Falsehood! 

message: In one part of the article the Castilian force is referred to as 60,000 strong and that is treated as a fact. In another part of the article it is said that the Castilians had only 14,000 men under arms and that contemporary sources exaggerate the size of the battle. The article is thus contradictory and badly in need of some cleanup and citation of references. David Newton 16:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be but the idea that the Castilian army was 60000 strong is laughable to put it mildly. If Arabic sources state this then there are just plain wrong. Armies of more than 25000 men are practically unheard of in early medieval times and are completely unknown in 11th century Europe. It's as simple as that.--79.74.170.157 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: could you provide a cite for this idea that 60k was much too large for an 11th century army? I'm quite certain it was a fairly common. At the very least, I'm sure that 2,500 troops as is currently claimed was not even really an army. It might be the case that there were 2,500 cavalry and even this would be a small amount.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.235.227.144 (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should rather discuss the assertion that there were 60 000 men in Alfonso's army. I can promise you that it was not common in any way. I challenge you to find a widely accepted case. Compare Sagrajas with Battle of Rio Salado in 1340 for which both sides had prepared well in advance, and still had little more than 20-25000 men on the field. Many Middle Age chroniclers tend to exaggerate numbers involved anyway, partly through poor understanding of the significance of the numbers and partly because they had no access to accurate estimates of combatants. We have more information and more sophisticated means of analysing the situation today which is why sometimes the numbers quoted by medieval historians have to be discounted. In the case of Sagrajas, 60000 men would imply that at very short notice King Alfonso raised a bigger army than any other Spanish King before the 16th century - sorry but that is just not believable and is wishful thinking on the part of the Arabic chroniclers.--AssegaiAli (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory 

message: Shouldn't this be titled "Battle of Sagrajas" as opposed to "Sagrajas"?Bless sins (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title, again