Dear /his/, enlighten me on the history of Iberia. >How has

File: 1452891436181.jpg (188KB, 742x829px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 742x829px

>How has Spain and Portugal managed to live together for so long without clashing, or am I wrong on that point altogether?
They fought each other a lot, mostly Spain trying to annex it. Usually Portugal and England vs Spain and France.
>How did the Portugese manage to end, and stay on the western side of the region?
The County of Portucale was given to Henry, the father of the first portuguese king.
>What happened to the Moors?
Reconquistas, deus vult

File: Fred Person the fairy.png (966KB, 960x911px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 960x911px

>>595029
Basically this

>>594966
It's also necessary to mention that there were attempts to unify the Iberian Peninsula through marriage. All of which failed as you can see. Closest to there being a Iberian union was after D.Sebastião's death, with Philip II of Spain.

>>594966

>etc. etc.
Seriously?

>>594966
They did clash, many times. At one point Poortugal got annexed even. They just reconquistaed the western side of the region, starting from Galizia. The moors either integrated themselves in mainstream christian society or got expelled.

Different political bodies developed in the hills and western plains.

File: São_nun'alvares_pereira.jpg (384KB, 608x660px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 608x660px

Romans spend 200 years trying to subjugate Iberia, culminating in the so-called Celtiberian Wars, which began as an extension of the Second Punic War.

As the Romans begin losing control over their provinces, the Visigoths are brought in as foederati to crush the Vandals. They succeed and settle in Iberia, eventually annexing the Suebic territory in Gallaecia as well.

Visigothic Iberia is basically a long series of civil wars and regicide, a phenomenon that came to be termed the morbus gothorum (the Disease of the Goths). This lasted until the 8th century, when one camp of Visigoths leading a coup against King Rodrigo hired Tariq ibn Ziyad's 10,000 - 16,000 Berbers as mercenaries. Ziyad, observing the general weakness and instability of Visigothic rule, was then reinforced by wali Nusair and so the Muslim "conquest" of Iberia began.

The reaction was almost immediate, with Christians unwilling to live under Islamic occupation fleeing to the north and forming the foundation of the Principality of Asturias. Traditionally the first action of the Reconquista is placed at Covadonga under Don Pelayo around 722. Since that battle onwards there was a fairly consistent resistance to the Moors, with other Christian Iberian principalities taking shape as territory was reconquered.

By 1249 the Portuguese had completed their Reconquista and were now occupying a territory that was very similar to Portugal's current borders. From this time onward conflicts between the Christian Kingdoms begin springing up with greater frequency. In Portugal's case, these were invariably conflicts with Castile. To cut a long story short, Castilian aims on Portugal were never realised not through lack of effort but because the Portuguese had consistently asserted their right to sovereignty, an assertion that they were able to back up through their own strength of arms and also through their alliance with the English. (cont.)

File: sancho.jpg (35KB, 210x210px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 210x210px

>>595677
The polity of Spain itself came into existence through a union between the Crowns of Castile and Aragon in 1469 with a marriage between Isabel I, Queen of Castile, and Fernando V, King of Aragon. This is a gross simplification of the process of consolidating power for brevity's sake. Two decades later, the Spanish Reconquista was completed in 1492 with the capture of Granada.

The Portuguese Age of Discovery actually began in the 14th century with their claim on the Canaries. From that period onward the Portuguese Reconquista (and this is important) was perpetuated by the exploration and colonisation of distant lands. The same is true of the Spanish, though the beginning of their Age of Discovery is usually placed over a century later in 1492. For the Spanish and Portuguese, the Reconquista did not end with the conquest of Algarve and Granada, but was transformed into the subjugating of African and American lands for Christ. This is far too often overlooked by historians.

I mention this because this was part of the logic behind Portugal's aims on Morocco, which ended with the disastrous Battle of Alcacer Quibir in which King Sebastian I was killed. This event is given an almost legendary quality by the Portuguese and is frequently considered the beginning of the end of Portuguese preeminence. It's also important because one of the consequences of Sebastian I's death was the Iberian Union, in which Portugal was incorportated into Spanish territory from 1580 to 1640. (cont.)

File: vasco da gama.jpg (485KB, 1090x1500px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 1090x1500px

>>595678
Back to the Spanish. Unlike the Portuguese, who were almost entirely focused on exploring and conquering extra-European territory, the Spaniards were not only conquering territory in the New World but were finding themselves increasingly wrapped up in European conflicts almost immediately after the Conquest of Granada. There are a variety of reasons for this, but one was the geographic position of Aragonese territory in el Levante. Their victory during the Second Italian War saw them gobble up a considerable portion of the Italian Peninsula. Their dealings in Italy brought them into continuous conflict with other European powers, particularly the French. This trend of being wrapped up in European conflicts (especially dynastic conflicts) continued for the Spaniards and the Habsburgs, particularly, would spend absurd amounts of money and countless lives on protecting their territorial claims, most infamously in the Netherlands.

The exact cause of Spain's decline as a world power is difficult to pinpoint. Perhaps some Spaniard here can give you a better explanation. I've seen it blamed on everything from the Habsburgs' obsession with their European possessions to general decadence, from the nobility squandering wealth to a general lack of manpower. It's probably a combination of all the listed factors and others besides.

I almost forgot: the Moors. What happened to them? First it is better to ask who were they? In Iberian languages, "moro," "mouro," etc. simply meant Muslim. It had no racial or ethnic connotation whatsoever. The majority of Moors were, in fact, native Iberian converts to Islam. A more famous example of this would be the Banu Qasi. Qasi was simply an Arabisation of Cassius. In other words, they were a Hispano-Roman family who had converted to Islam.

File: CRUZ-DE-LA-VICTORIA-793489.jpg (56KB, 200x165px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 200x165px

>>595681
During the Reconquista, when a territory was conquered by Christians the Muslim population was typically expelled. The territory would then be repopulated by Iberian Christians, often from far-flung regions. My own family name bears the proof of this. My family is Portuguese but our surname indicates a Basque origin. Thus, when the region where my family came from was reconquered by Christians, evidently a significant portion of Basques came to repopulate it.

Those who were expelled or fled in this process probably wound up in Moorish territory. After the conquest of Granada, when there was no more Moorish territory in Iberia, I would assume a great many of them either converted to Christianity, and then "absorbed" by the local population, or had fled to North Africa. I put "absorbed" in quotations because, really, most of them were just ethnic Iberians who were Muslim, apart from the old Arab oligarchy.

>>595686
Hm, interesting. I have portuguese origins but while researching for family history it seems my surname is of dutch origins.

>>595733
Is your family, by any chance, from the Azores? São Jorge and Flores were initially colonized by Flemish settlers, and because of the great number of such people living throughout the archipelago the Azores used to be called the Flemish Islands (Ilhas dos Flamengos, I think).

>>595681
>The exact cause of Spain's decline as a world power is difficult to pinpoint. Perhaps some Spaniard here can give you a better explanation. I've seen it blamed on everything from the Habsburgs' obsession with their European possessions to general decadence, from the nobility squandering wealth to a general lack of manpower. It's probably a combination of all the listed factors and others besides.
There isn't a "exact" reason why our country fell, it was the culmination of several centuries of problems.

The first one was the monarchs: Spain has sadly had terrible ones since the Reyes Católicos, who actually did something for the whole of the nation. With Carlos I -or V, depending on which country you study Spanish history- Spain already aimed down, even if the country only got richer and more powerful. Why do I say this, then? Well, as you said it: the Austrian kings spent everything on wars, worthless and stupid wars that had no reason to be fought in the first place instead of investing in the peninsula's industry -this is why even while being the world superpower, Spaniards migrated to Los Ángeles and other colonies, because live was better than than in the mainland. As you said, Netherlands presents the best example, since it was never a functional territory under Spanish administration and served as a hole to waste gold and soldiers.

(cont...)

>>594966
>Alliances with other Europeans
>Again, alliances.
>Inquisition

>>595603
portugal was never annexed, (right?) it always existed, just under union

>>596121
With Felipe II the country saw the largest extension of the empire, IIRC 30 million kms square and it had over 20% of the world's total GDP. With this data in mind, you now might have an idea of how absolutely clueless the Austrias were: at this point Spain was at war with everyone in the world, specially in Europe. At one point, the Catalans revolted for independence, and they were stopped, but this gave Portugal enough of an opportunity to fight for their independence.

At this point shit hit the fan for Spanish history.

There were no soldiers to fight the Portuguese back, and adding to that the fact that the Portuguese were some of the best warriors in the world, it was impossible for Spain to contain the newly added territories from leaving.

All the while, the population of Spain was in deep poverty even thought the country had the world by the balls. The money that had come to Spain was not getting to the everyday people, but to the nobles. This was bad enough, but it was even worse considering the noble families that benefited were not actually Spanish, but German.

And that's one of the main reasons the Habsburgs are disliked by many: they were not Spanish at all, they were Germans more worried about Germany and their central-European possessions than with the Iberian regions.

The travesty that was the Austrian monarchy only brought weak and not-very-bright kings, ending up in Carlos II.

(cont...)

>>596148

Thats how Spanish realm worked back in the day.

>>596167
Carlos II died without children, causing the Guerra de sucesión, which saw the French Borbones taking the throne. The Austrias were already bad, but the Borbones were even worse.

No advancements in regards to industry were made with this monarchy, and Spain was at this point having a lot of trouble keeping its global dominance alive. the Spaniards were still poor and no money was invested in them, with the German nobility being swapped for French nobility.

Then Fernando VII happened, and I say "happened" because this monarch was a case for study. This is the King that takes the crown in the tournament of "who can fuck Spain up". This man wanted to be French, he desired to be part of France, and as such, he allowed the French army to pass through Spain under the promise that "France would not invade Spain" to conquer Portugal.

The Spanish army was at this point the French army. This is why Spain had to free itself from the invasion by the now famous "guerra de guerrillas".

With the mainland invaded, it was only a matter of time for the empire to fall, and, as such, throughout the 19th Spain lost -almost- everything in America. the only "good" thing to take from this century is that Cataluña was reconquered from France.

(cont...)

>>596167
>At one point, the Catalans revolted for independence, and they were stopped, but this gave Portugal enough of an opportunity to fight for their independence.
Ironically this was started by the Portuguese themselves.

>>596208
And we get to the famous date: 1898, the disaster that put the nail in the coffin for Spain as a world power. I don't even know what in the hell even happened for Spain to be so terribly destroyed by the USA, but with this war the country lost Filipinas, Cuba and Puerto Rico. What saddens me about this is that Filipinas no longer speaks Spanish, and that hurts me a lot.

Now, this is where I put aside the international side of the problem with Spain and the part that Spaniards are not a directly responsible for.

The 20th century marks the very example of why people have said all throughout history that the thing a Spaniard hates the most is another Spaniard. I wouldn't know about other countries, but Spain has seen so many civil conflicts it's surprising we even stayed together for so long. The resentment among the Spanish is and has been very big. But the 2 civil wars that happened in Spain during this century took one of the most relevant countries in the world into sheer poverty.

Out of the 100 years within a century, Spain saw 47 years of dictatorship, 6 of "dictablanda" -as we called it here- and 3 of a horrendous war.

Still today, as you know, regional conflict is a serious issue, as it has always been, sadly.

Now, bare in mind all I have said is in regards to politics and economics, not culture and just the surface. It makes me deeply sad, but there's a lot of truth in claiming that Spain failed because Spain was never meant to be.

>>596148
It was annexed, but got independence very quickly. Just like Cataluña was french for a while.

>>596255
It's hard to say Spain really failed in general. It was hugely successful for a period of time, which is more than a lot of other states can aspire to.

>>596404
>It's hard to say Spain really failed in general
I didn't mean in general, I was referring to the economical and political situation in from the mid/late 19th century to the third quarter of the 20th century.

I see my posts seem a bit harsh with my country's history, but that was not the point.

>>596476
You're Spanish, right? Thanks for your input, Spain is a fascinating country. So forgotten about in modern European discussions.

>>596699
Yes, I'm Spanish.

Spain never thought of Europe as "their own", our history revolves around Iberia and the colonies. It's only been recently that the European sentiment started to shine a bit.

>>596734
Portuguese here, same thought basically.
I'm still surprised both our countries joined the EU before even making our own agreements between each other.

>>596255
> It makes me deeply sad, but there's a lot of truth in claiming that Spain failed because Spain was never meant to be.

Nonsensical reasoning. That's like saying England wasn't meant to be because it was divided in multiple Anglo-Saxon feudal kingdoms.

Seeing your posts (many filled with grammatical mistakes btw) I can infer you are some kind of left-wing or independentist or both or you are just the typical pseudo-cosmopolitan self-hating Spaniard that this country suffers so much from.

>>596699
That's logic since it has been stagnant since around the early 19th century. But it never stopped being at least culturally relevant.

Many people in present Spain feel as though we should apologise for our history when every other power in Europe except maybe Germany is boastful and proud of it.

>>597105
Chill. He's probably just not that good with English (quite common). And also, he's talking about how the Castilla-Aragón Union changed its name to España from the old Roman Hispania, which is nonsensical since it wasn't the same at all.

>>597105
No, I'm a nationalist who wants nothing but for my country to be great again, your conclusions leave me incredibly surprised.

Yes, I made grammatical mistakes in my posts. My native language is Spanish, not English, I don't understand how you could miss the parts that make it very obvious.

The claim is not nonsensical, since the Spanish identity doesn't exist in Spain. People in Galicia, Euskadi, Cataluña and some other places don't feel Spanish, and that is a reality. I'm not judging who is and isn't more or less Spanish, I'm talking about the fact that if there's no national identity -which there isn't- even after centuries of Spain existing.

It's for this that your example is wrong. The English feel English, it's stupid to say the same for the Spaniards; it's not a matter of how it was divided or if the divisions were of different races, but if the union is even supported and desired by the people itself.

From your post I can infer you lack deep reading skills. I am from Madrid.

>>597230
> People in Galicia, Euskadi, Cataluña and some other places don't feel Spanish

They literally felt the most Spanish out of Spaniards until the 19th century when a minority of then-regionalists greatly made up these nationalist ideologies. And even after then, it has been artificially blown out of proportion with autonomous governments fabricating lies about their place in history.

> there's no national identity -which there isn't- even after centuries of Spain existing

You must be anthropologist at least to make that absolute an assessment.

>I am from Madrid.

Y te llamas Pablo Iglesias.

>>597275
Ca burro. Só dizes merda puto.

>>597275
>They literally felt
Yes, they felt so Spanish that they didn't even start speaking Castellano until the 19th century.
>to make that absolute assessment
No, I just need to not be blind. Go to any of those regions with a Spanish flag and see what you get.
>And your name is Pablo Iglesias
No, Manolo Hernández Rodriguez, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, I'm a podemita. I want global Spain back, I want us to be strong again, I want to show a Cruz de Borgoña on Barcelona and not get stabbed in the back.

It doesn't matter how much you desire to think that separatist have no case -as for me, Euskadi's will for independence is absolutely stupid and baseless- because no matter how much you tell Jordi that he is Spanish, he will not want to be called Spanish or take part in your country.

I'll go to sleep now, and you should too.

>>597329
>I'm a podemita
I'm not*
Cannot type right.

>>597230
Spain's current regionalist woes seem a little more pronounced than most other countries but, really, it's nothing out of the ordinary. Italy is divided North-South, as is England. Canada has had trouble coping with its Anglo-French duality since before it existed as a federal polity. Portugal also has a North-South problem (which I witnessed in person) but it's so minor as to be almost negligible. The same is true for heaps of countries.

>>597337
>Portugal also has a North-South problem (which I witnessed in person) but it's so minor as to be almost negligible.
tbqh most of that just comes from the fact that the people in the north are poor as shit and think the government is to blame for everything

>>597329
>Euskadi's will for independence is absolutely stupid and baseless
Eh, why? They don't even speak a latin language, they're basically cavemen, of course they feel outside of Spain and France.

>>597362
Pretty strange that not even 100 years ago some of the most die-hard federalists were Basque Carlists, then.

>>597372
...And the Caudillo was Galician, your point? There are extremists everywhere, that doesn't mean that the majority of the people there didn't want independence.

>>597372
Carlists were not federalists. They literally killed Liberals for Spain and wanted an absolute monarchy in power. They just wanted to keep their foral privileges.

Same with Catalans. Except they didn't have privileges to vouch for and they wanted a strong monarchy and had a very deeply rooted sense of Spain and Spanishness.

Some think to be Spanish you have to speak Castilian, which is not the case.

>>597387
>that doesn't mean that the majority of the people there didn't want independence
Carlism had no greater support than from Basques. It's not the same.

The point is that >>597275 is right. There has been a radical shift in how certain people understand themselves in relation to Spain. If the fact that Basques didn't speak a Latin language was a non-issue for them a century ago, why is it today? It's a legitimate question, IMO.

>>597410
>why is it today? It's a legitimate question, IMO.
I'm not Spanish (portuguese) but I was always taught that you guys entered a civil war because your king was weak so republic movements were all around AND because of independentist movements like catalunya and galicia.
Today it's still an issue because they wanted more autonomy than just being a "special region".
Basically what I see for the future of Spain is eventually a federalization of various states, and perhaps Portugal joining in once we go full bankrupt.

>>597406
>Gora Jainko maite maitea
>zagun denon jabe.
>Gora España ta Euskalerria
>ta bidezko errege.
...
>Gora euskalduna,
>audo ondo Españia-ko
>errege bera duna!

Leaves little doubt in my mind.

>>597421
Just FYI, I'm not Spanish. I don't want to misrepresent myself, here. I'm Canadian.

>>597427
Oh ok. Well it still applies to the discussion I guess

>>597421
>perhaps Portugal joining in once we go full bankrupt.
And just an addendum: I don't think this is likely. I remember reading some 10 years ago or so, perhaps in El Pais, a survey taken by Portuguese on the subject of Iberismo/Hispanismo/whatever it's called today. 28% responded favourably. This was at a time, remember, when there was considerably more economic certainty and people had fewer reasons to be suspicious of large political unions. It'd be interesting to see what the number's like today. If I could hazard a guess, I'd say it's quite a bit lower.

>>597433
Really? I'd say it's higher tbqh. The idea of a "european" identity has really flourished recently here imo. People might not enjoy the idea of having to pay for the Germans or whatever (socialism is huge here and I hate it), but they like the idea of being european and going to Italy of France easily.
Still, 28% is much higher than what I thought.

>>596167
>All the while, the population of Spain was in deep poverty even thought the country had the world by the balls. The money that had come to Spain was not getting to the everyday people, but to the nobles

hmmmm, this reminds me of a certain contemporary nation...

>>597421
if we go full bankrupt, spain goes full bankrupt too, considering the current inner workings of the ECB and the European Union

>>597487
heh, if we have to go down, might as well just go together

>>597362
Yes, I know they have a very old culture, but the Basques are the fathers of Spain, that's why I believe it's stupid to think they should be a different country.

Some of the most important generals that made the empire were Basque, and the Basque people have done a lot for the country since they became a part of it.

Completely forgetting and disregarding that Euskadi is an intrinsic part of Spain is, in my honest opinion, absolutely stupid. That's why I say that.

>>599658
>the Basques are the fathers of Spain
Wut? I always saw them as just adjacent to Spain. The true fathers of Spain are the Asturias and the Aragonese.
Sure, the Basques are a big part of it all, but their not the fathers of it. I mean, Kevin Shields isn't known as the father of grunge.

>>597472
I read that recently is like 40% among portuguese.

>>595767
From what I know, I'm a descendent from some flemish guy who went to Northeastern Brazil in 1600s or 1700s and originally was from Utretch

>>599787
*dutch guy, not flemish

>>599780
Cool, do you have some links? I'm really curious about that.

>>599713
>Wut? I always saw them as just adjacent to Spain. The true fathers of Spain are the Asturias and the Aragonese.
No. Asturias and Aragón were not as caring to Spain as Castilla or Euskadi. These 2 kingdoms were the main reason for the global empire and the repopulation of the peninsula.

>>599796
>the repopulation of the peninsula
>Castilla
>not Asturias
Dude why are you lying. I know for a fact most people in my region here in Portugal came from the Asturias.

>>599792
I'm not that guy, I'm the guy from before who mentioned the El Pais article. I found it:

http://elpais.com/diario/2006/09/23/internacional/1158962413_850215.html

>>599840
Which region, may I ask? My family were from Braga and our surname has Basque origins.

>>599849
Porto region. Even the founder of our great city was an Asturian lord.

>>599843
Thanks m8.

>>599840
Maybe in your region, but that's not for the whole of Spain. Why do you think the most common surnames are either Basque or have the Basque "-ez"? It's simple, it was Basque people given new homes by Castilla to get the country restarted.

Asturias started it all, but after that start, the region pretty much stopped caring as much as Castilla and Euskadi.

>>599868
>but after that start
Portugal in its entirety was repopulated from people from Galicia and Northern Portugal, which had come mainly from the Asturias.
In the center of the Peninsula + Andalusia you are mostly correct, but in the west and in the east you're wrong.

>>599879
No, I'm not wrong, you are just taking the case of Portugal, as kingdom that was not longer part of Castilla as the example for everything.

http://www.heraldica.es/apellidos/provincias.htm

Every province in Spain, every single one of them has a vast, and I mean VAST majority of Basque surnames. This is not a theory, this is a fact. This is truth even in Cataluña, where you would expect Catalan surnames to be the majority.

>>599894
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_naming_customs#/media/File:Concentracion_apellidos_por_provincias_Espa%C3%B1a.png
I call bullshit tho.

>>599921
I can do this all day. I have sources for days, and this is common knowledge in Spain.

http://www.huffingtonpost.es/2014/05/23/nombres-mas-frecuentes-espana_n_5379867.html

You only gave me an image of the % of people BORN that year. You disregarded that the very next map shows what I'm saying is right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spanish_surnames_by_province_of_residence.png

>>599945
I'm still trying to find how the -ez thing is a guaranteed ascendancy from Euskadi. Because in Portugal that was common in people just because of their parent's name. Even our first King was named Henriques because his father was Henrique (but he was a frenchman, so it's impossible for our first King to have Basque ascendancy from his last name or his father's side). Is it not possible that the same happened in Spain? I know it happened in Galicia. Vímares is a last name in Porto only because of the amoun of Vímara as a first name we had here in the middle ages.
I think you just took a practice, which is cultural heritage, i.e. people started doing it because the Basques were doing it, and mistook it as actual heritage. I know for a fact some people here with last names ending with "-es" are not of Basque ascendancy.
I'm not denying the Basque cultural patrimony in our peninsula (and I still haven't found proof that the Basques were the first to do this but whatever), but you're foolish to think they actually had that much of an impact on the ascendancy of the people here. Even modern genetics say you're wrong.

>>599984
The "-ez" doesn't always mean a connection to the Basque, that's obvious, as a matter of fact, I'm sure that there are some Jew surnames with "-ez", but cannot recall a concrete one.

The point is that the ones that are common in Spain just so happen to be the exact same as in Euskadi, coincidence? No. Again, the Basque were given new homes to repopulate the peninsula, that's why the most common surnames in Euskadi are the same as in Castilla.

The fact that "-ez" is not just a Basque particle doesn't mean anything after what I said, but I should have indeed worded that better, so let me restart to get us both in the same page.

Considering Castilla was part of Galicia, it would make sense that the most common surnames were Galician, but that is not the case, as I've said, we have the same surnames as the Basque, we just transcripted them -see "García", a Castillinized version of the original. From what I've been reading now, there seems to be some studies that are doubting the "-ez" as a Basque particle, until this is backed with enough evidence, I'll run with what I was taught and proven in high-school; but still, this doesn't debunk my point, it just changes the reasoning with which you end up there.

Again, just look at how awfully similar the surnames are between Euskadi and Castilla, and how few Galician surnames are actually there. Be it a Gothic or basque particle, it came to Castilla through the Basque repopulators.

>>600040
It's interesting that you were taught that, I was taught that the Basque had a very small impact on the population per se, more culturally.
Genetically, the people from the Basque country are very different from the rest of us here in the peninsula. I have always been very curious about that, I would like to know if it's possible to see how much percentage one has of Basque in his DNA. Sounds cool.
But anyway, the other -ez names just derive from normal hispanic names (Rodrigo which is germanic, Martin which is latin, etc etc) sounds like they just grabbed the idea from whoever it was that originally came up with it and then copypasted it to their own names, thus this isn't really a definite proof for any ascendancy. But Garcia being so common is really interesting though.
Also, I was never taught Castilla was a part of Galicia... Both were a part of the original Asturian Kingdom (this is how I was taught), but they all had somewhat different cultures, Galicia was even managed as a kingdom of its own (but with the same king as the others) for sometime. Don't know about Castilla though. I never would've imagined Galicia owned Castilla tbqh.
In any case, it's interesting to see the surnames part, especially with the name Garcia. It is super common after all. I guess there is some Basque in you Spanish after all.

>>600134
>Genetically, the people from the Basque country are very different from the rest of us here in the peninsula
Not really "very" different. I would not be able to tell a Basque apart from a Spaniard, unless he were to have one of those weird hair styles Basque seem to be so fond of or that the Spaniard were to be very dark skinned and obviously of considerable Magrebian descent.
>normal hispanic names
Definitely, that's what I meant by "-ez", because most of the names are actually Germanic or Latin, with the particle added. I still stand on the ascendancy, even if considering the "-ez" surnames, García alone posses a very difficult to debunk case.
>Castilla was Galician
Yes, this is not widely known by Spaniards either. Galicia broke up into León, Castilla, Portugal and Galicia. This is why Aljubarrota even happened and was between Castilla and Portugal and not Galicia, Castilla wanted the spoils of her "father".
>there is some basque in you after all
Indeed, even the Basque know this. This is the root of why I originally said I find Basuqe separatism stupid.

>>600212
>I still stand on the ascendancy, even if considering the "-ez" surnames, García alone posses a very difficult to debunk case.
Even if disregarding*
What the fuck is happening to me today? Why can't I properly type?

>>600212
>Not really "very" different.
But they are though!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Basques#Paleogenetic_investigations
>In May 2012, the National Geographic Society Genographic Project released a study that showed through detailed DNA analysis of samples from French and Spanish Basque regions that Basques share unique genetic patterns that distinguish them from the surrounding non-Basque populations.

>Yes, this is not widely known by Spaniards either. Galicia broke up into León, Castilla, Portugal and Galicia.
Wut? Post proof. Galicia was not the original name of the first Christian Kingdom, I have no idea what you're talking about.

File: 1435078734758.png (316KB, 1500x1200px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1500x1200px

>>600347
>halogroups
I've seen many other sources that pointed out outrageous stuff regarding this field of study, so I don't put much faith into it. Pic related claims the Basque are close to us -also claiming we are closer to the French than North Italians-, the wikipedia article claims Brits have origins in Euskadi. I don't know about you, but this claims are pretty off to me.
>Post proof
The triarchy: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reino_de_Galicia#Origen:_la_triarqu.C3.ADa_del_reino_de_Alfonso_III
I link it in Spanish because I cannot find it in English.
>resolvió dividir el reino entre ellos, asignándoles respectivamente León, Asturias y Galicia
After this, the counties of Castilla and Portugal got their independence and became kingdoms of their own, with Castilla taking over Asturias.

>>600376
...The triachy was did not come from Galicia... They simply divided the original Christian Kingdom (many times called Kingdom of Asturias) into three.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Galicia#Early_and_High_Middle_Ages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Galicia#Interludes_of_independence:_10th_and_11th_centuries
Both the link you sent and the quote you posted only show the division Alfonso III of Asturias made between his three sons, not that three kingdoms combined were called Galicia originally. Castilla never belonged to Galicia m8.
As to the image you just posted, you just proved yourself wrong: you claim they are the same as us, but right in that picture, Portuguese and Spanish are cluttered together in one big block but Basque are clearly apart and much more distant from us than Italians and French.
Also the wikipedia page quotes an article that shows they are related to Irish and Welsh, which are both not in your picture. If the Basque are the same as us, why are they so apart from French (geographical proximity would say otherwise, no?) and why are they not cluttered with us?

>>600426
>not that three kingdoms combined were called Galicia originally
I stand corrected, I confused the old kingdom of Galicia with Asturias when referring to Castilla's independence.
>Castilla never belonged to Galicia
And I stand corrected here too, it belonged to Leon. It seems I got my names wrong because of proximity and how Leon is always forgotten.
>As to the image you just posted, you just proved yourself wrong: you claim they are the same as us
No, I didn't claim they're the same as us:
>Not really "very" different
That's a hell of a stretch towards "the same". The Basque cluster is not "much more distant", it's right aside while Maghreb is somehow completely separated even though we are supposed to have "20%" of our blood from there. Then North Italy is somehow further from the French than us, there is no way this has any explanation, the annexation of Cataluña was too short in time and small in population to even come close to be relevant in terms of genetics and the old Frankish territories were assimilated centuries ago.

>>600552
>No, I didn't claim they're the same as us:
>>Not really "very" different
>That's a hell of a stretch towards "the same". The Basque cluster is not "much more distant"
OH. Sorry! Completely misunderstood you there. We can, at least, both agree that the Basques are different from the rest of us in the peninsula. Not that different, but different none the less. They have higher percentage of red hair, I know I read that somewhere once, but apart from that they look a lot like us.

>>600347
Talk about cherrypicking, the following five paragraphs of the article go on to say the complete opposite thing. Even so, almost every settled population will have its "unique genetic patterns," the same way that an extended family has them. The Basque are hardly comparable to analogous populations, like the Kalash, in terms of genetic differentiation.

>>600376
>>600426
I wish people would stop posting these charts and articles out of context, these studies were done with specific questions in mind and they often don't mean what anons think they mean. You could at least source the study so we actually know what we're looking at. For example, do you see a pattern in the placement of the groups? Something interesting about the arrangement of, for example, N Italian, Tuscan, and S Italian?

If I recall correctly, this is from a study on genetic closeness of populations – the colored blocks are mixed sample regions (so "Basque" block represents only the tiny Basque country, while "Spanish/Portuguese" is the mix of the rest of the peninsula), and surprise surprise the results show that genetic relatedness corresponds to geography, with gaps corresponding to the Mediterranean, Alps, Caucasus, Black Sea, and Eurasian steppe.

The populations exist in clean little blocks because that's how they were sampled. If the study differentiated between their Portuguese and Spanish samples, you'd likely see a neat Portuguese block next to a neat Spanish block.

It's the equivalent of instead waving a chart that shows Basque country as having majority R1b Y-haplotype and claiming that Basques are therefore identical to their neighbors.

Also, the R1b/European refugia hypothesis (as well as the Milesian invasion myth for the settlement of Ireland from Iberia) has been shattered many times over, I'm surprised it's still sourced.

>>600583
>I wish people would stop posting these charts and articles out of context
I posted the image as an example of why this kind of studies are to be taken with a grain of salt and pointed out the cases I pointed to make it even clearer.
>If the study differentiated between their Portuguese and Spanish samples, you'd likely see a neat Portuguese block next to a neat Spanish block.
Precisely why I'm stating my disregard for this kind of images and sources and taking surnames and obvious physical similarities between all the Iberian regions to back what I'm saying.

>>594966
>How has Spain and Portugal managed to live together for so long without clashing, or am I wrong on that point altogether?

Yes, you are wrong. They experienced clashes. A lot. Portugal managed to survive Castile and its repeated attempts to take over the entire peninsula, resisted as it could, was annexed in 1580, but restored its independence in 1640.

>How did the Portugese manage to end, and stay on the western side of the region?

It did not end there. It began there. It was a small County, vassal of León, which reached the grace of kingdom and advanced on the Moor domains on the Atlantic coast.

>What happened to the Moors?

Expelled or converted. They were not so numerous. Comprised the commercial and government elite. Most of the population was native, spoke Latin with Arabic influence, and professed the Christian faith.