text:
Revolt of the Comuneros
1520s rebellion in Spain
For other revolts by this name, see Comunero (disambiguation).
Execution of the Comuneros of Castile, by Antonio Gisbert (1860)
April 16, 1520 – October 25, 15211
Crown of Castile
Decisive royalist victory
Comuneros rebels Royalist Castilians
Juan López de Padilla,
Juan Bravo,
Francisco Maldonado,
María Pacheco,
Antonio de Acuña,
Pedro Girón, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor;
Adrian of Utrecht, regent of Castile;
Íñigo Fernández, Constable of Castile;
Fadrique Enríquez, Admiral of Castile
1February 3, 1522 is also used as an end date; see 1522 revolt.
San Pablo Church in Valladolid, seat of a Cortes held in 1518. Protests emerged when the Flemish adviser Jean de Sauvage was named its president, presaging later troubles.
The Revolt of the Comuneros (Spanish: Guerra de las Comunidades de Castilla, "War of the Communities of Castile") was an uprising by citizens of Castile against the rule of Charles I and his administration between 1520 and 1521. At its height, the rebels controlled the heart of Castile, ruling the cities of Valladolid, Tordesillas, and Toledo.
The revolt occurred in the wake of political instability in the Crown of Castile after the death of Queen Isabella I in 1504. Isabella's daughter Joanna succeeded to the throne. Due to Joanna's mental instability, Castile was ruled by the nobles and her father, King Ferdinand II of Aragon, as a regent. After Ferdinand's death in 1516, Joanna's sixteen-year-old son Charles was proclaimed king of both Castile and Aragon. Charles had been raised in the Netherlands with little knowledge of Castilian. He arrived in Spain in October 1517 accompanied by a large retinue of Flemish nobles and clerics. These factors resulted in mistrust between the new king and the Castilian social elites, who could see the threat to their power and status.
In 1519, Charles was elected Holy Roman Emperor. He departed for Germany in 1520, leaving the Dutch cardinal Adrian of Utrecht to rule Castile in his absence. Soon, a series of anti-government riots broke out in the cities, and local city councils (Comunidades) took power. The rebels chose Charles' own mother, Queen Joanna, as an alternative ruler, hoping they could control her madness. The rebel movement took on a radical anti-feudal dimension, supporting peasant rebellions against the landed nobility. On April 23, 1521, after nearly a year of rebellion, the reorganized supporters of the emperor struck a crippling blow to the comuneros at the Battle of Villalar. The following day, rebel leaders Juan López de Padilla, Juan Bravo, and Francisco Maldonado were beheaded. The army of the comuneros fell apart. Only the city of Toledo kept alive the rebellion led by María Pacheco, until its surrender in October 1521.
The character of the revolution is a matter of historiographical debate. According to some scholars, the revolt was one of the first modern revolutions, notably because of the anti-noble sentiment against social injustice and its basis on ideals of democracy and freedom. Others consider it a more typical rebellion against high taxes and perceived foreign control. From the 19th century onwards, the revolt has been mythologized by various Spaniards, generally liberals who drew political inspiration from it. Conservative intellectuals have traditionally adopted more pro-Imperial stances toward the revolt, and have been critical of both the motives and the government of the comuneros. With the end of Franco's dictatorship and the establishment of the autonomous community of Castile and León, positive commemoration of the Comunidades has grown. April 23 is now celebrated as Castile and León Day, and the incident is often referred to in Castilian nationalism.
1.1 Succession of Charles
1.2 New taxes: The Cortes of Santiago and Corunna
2 Beginnings of the Revolt
2.1 Rebelliousness in Toledo
2.2 Proposals to other cities
3 Expansion of the Revolt
3.1 Blockade of Segovia
3.2 The Junta of Ávila
3.3 Burning of Medina del Campo
3.4 The Junta of Tordesillas
3.5 Scope of the rebellion
4 Popular and governmental response
4.1 Turning of the nobles
4.2 Response of Charles V
5 Organization, funding, and diplomacy
6 Battle of Tordesillas
6.1 Leadership disputes
6.2 Royal capture
7 Events of December and January
7.1 Reorganization of the comuneros
7.2 Military initiatives in Palencia and Burgos
7.3 Royalist response
8 Rebel campaigns of early 1521
8.1 Padilla's decision on the rebels' next move
8.2 Battle of Torrelobatón
8.3 Acuña's southern campaign
9 Battle of Villalar
10 End of the war
10.1 Resistance of Toledo
10.2 Revolt of February 1522
10.3 Pardon of 1522
11 Aftermath
12 Later influence
15.1 Citations
15.2 Sources
Origins[edit]
A 1516 portrait of King Charles I of Castile and Aragon, later Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, by Bernard van Orley. Charles would rule one of the largest empires in European history—through his father Philip, Burgundy and the Netherlands; through his mother Joanna, Castile, Aragon, and Naples; and through his grandfather Maximilian and his election in 1519 as Holy Roman Emperor, Germany, Austria, and much of Northern Italy.
Discontent had been brewing for years before the Revolt of the Comuneros. The second half of the 15th century saw profound political, economic, and social changes in Spain. Economic growth created new urban industries and offered a route to power and wealth not tied to the aristocracy. Support from these urban elites was critical to Ferdinand and Isabella's centralization of power, and they acted as a counterweight to the landed aristocracy and the clergy.[1]
However, with Isabella I's death and Joanna's acession in 1504, this alliance between the national government and the budding middle class faltered.[1] The Castilian government decayed with each successive administration, becoming rife with corruption.[2] Joanna's husband, Philip I, reigned briefly; he was replaced by Archbishop Cisneros as regent for a short time, and then by Isabella's widower Ferdinand who ruled from Aragon.[3] Ferdinand's claim to continue ruling Castile as regent was somewhat tenuous after Isabella's death, but no plausible alternatives existed as the sovereign, their widowed daughter Joanna, was mentally unfit to reign on her own.[3] The landed nobility of Castile took advantage of the weak and corrupt Royal Council to illegally expand their territory and domain with private armies while the government did nothing.[4] In response, the towns signed mutual defense pacts, relying on each other rather than the national government.[5]
The budgets of both Castile and Aragon had been in poor condition for some time. The government had expelled the Jews in 1492 and the Muslims of Granada in 1502, moves that undercut lucrative trades and businesses.[6] Ferdinand and Isabella had been forced to borrow money to pay troops during and after the Reconquista, and Spanish military obligations had only increased since then.[7] A large number of troops were required to maintain stability in recently conquered Granada, threatened by revolt from the maltreated moriscos (former Muslims who had converted to Christianity) and frequent naval raids from Muslim nations along the Mediterranean.[8] Additionally, Ferdinand had invaded and occupied the Iberian part of Navarre in 1512, and forces were required to garrison it against Navarrese revolts and French armies.[9] Very little money was left to pay for the royal army in Castile proper, let alone service foreign debts. The corruption in the government since Isabella's death only made the budget shortfalls worse.[7]
Succession of Charles[edit]
In 1516, Ferdinand died. The remaining heir was Ferdinand and Isabella's grandson Charles, who became King Charles I of both Castile and Aragon in coregency with his mother Joanna. Charles was brought up in Flanders, the homeland of his father Philip, and barely knew Castilian.[10] The people greeted him with skepticism, but also hoped he would restore stability. With the arrival of the new king in late 1517, his Flemish court took positions of power in Castile; young Charles only trusted people he knew from the Netherlands. Among the most scandalous of these was the appointment of the twenty-year-old William de Croÿ as Archbishop of Toledo. The Archbishopric was an important position; it had been held by Archbishop Cisneros, the former regent of the country.[11][12] Six months into his rule, discontent openly simmered among rich and poor alike. Even some monks began to agitate, denouncing the opulence of the royal court, the Flemish, and the nobility in their sermons. One of the first public protests involved placards posted in churches, which read:
You, land of Castile, very wretched and damned are you to suffer that as noble a kingdom as you are, you will be governed by those who have no love for you.[13]
With the unrest growing, Charles' paternal grandfather Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I died in 1519. A new election had to be held to choose the next emperor. Charles campaigned aggressively for the post, vying with King Francis I of France to bribe the most prince-electors.[14] Charles I won the election, becoming Emperor Charles V and cementing the power of the House of Habsburg. He prepared to head to Germany to take possession of his new domains in the Holy Roman Empire.[14]
New taxes: The Cortes of Santiago and Corunna[edit]
Charles had already stressed the treasury to its limit with his extravagant Flemish court, and over 1 million florins were spent in bribes for the election.[12] Taxes[note a] had to be raised to cover the debt, but any new taxes had to be approved by the Cortes (Castile's own parliamentary body). Thus, in late March 1520, Charles convened the Cortes in Santiago de Compostela. Charles ensured the Cortes would only have limited power, and further attempted to stack the Cortes with pliable representatives he could bribe.[12] Support for the opposition only increased in response, and the representatives demanded that their grievances be heard first before any new tax was granted.[15]
A group of clerics soon circulated a statement in protest of the king. It argued three points: any new taxes should be rejected; Castile should be embraced and the foreign Empire rejected; and if the king did not take into account his subjects, the Comunidades themselves should defend the interests of the kingdom.[16] It was the first time where the word comunidades (communities, communes) was used to signify the independent populace, and the name would stick to the councils later formed.[16]
At this point, most of the members of the Cortes in Santiago intended to vote against the king's requested duties and taxes, even with the Cortes stacked with royalists. In response, Charles decided to suspend the Cortes on April 4.[17] He convened them again in Corunna on April 22, this time getting his program passed.[12] On May 20, he embarked for Germany, and left as regent of his Spanish possessions his former tutor, Adrian of Utrecht (better known as the future Pope Adrian VI).[18]
Beginnings of the Revolt[edit]
Rebelliousness in Toledo[edit]
Toledo, home of the first Comunidad
Juan López de Padilla, leader of the Comunidad of Toledo
In April 1520, Toledo was already unstable. The city council had been at the forefront of protests against Charles' bid to become Holy Roman Emperor. They decried the short-term expenses that would be borne by Castile and questioned the role of Castile in this new political framework, given the possibility that the land would become a mere imperial province.[16] The situation erupted when the royal government summoned the most radical of the city councilors away from the city, intending to send back more easily controllable replacements on a royal salary. The order came on April 15; one day later, as the councilors prepared to leave, a large crowd opposed to the departure rioted and drove out the royal administrators instead.[19] A citizen's committee was elected under the leadership of Juan López de Padilla and Pedro Laso de la Vega, naming themselves a Comunidad. On April 21, the remaining administrators were driven from the fortifications of the Alcázar of Toledo.[20]
Following Charles' departure to Germany, the riots multiplied in the cities of central Castile, especially after the arrival of legislators who had voted "yes" to the taxes Charles had asked for. Segovia had some of the earliest and most violent incidents; on May 30, a mob of woolworkers murdered two administrators and the city's legislator who had voted in favor.[21] Incidents of a similar size occurred in cities such as Burgos and Guadalajara, while others, such as León, Ávila, and Zamora, suffered minor altercations.[22]
Proposals to other cities[edit]
With widespread discontent circulating, on June 8 Toledo's council suggested to cities with a vote in the Cortes to hold an emergency meeting. They proffered five goals:
Cancel the taxes voted in the Cortes of Corunna.
A return to the local-controlled encabezamiento system of taxation.
Reserve official positions and church benefices for Castilians.
Prohibit money from leaving the kingdom to fund foreign affairs.
Designate a Castilian to lead the kingdom in the absence of the king.[23]
These claims, especially the first two, spread quickly through society.[23] Ideas began to circulate of replacing the king; Toledo's leaders floated the possibility of turning the cities of Castile into independent free cities, similar to Genoa and other Italian republics.[23] Competing proposals suggested keeping the monarchy, but dethroning Charles. They proposed that he be replaced by either his mother Queen Joanna or his Castilian-born brother Ferdinand.[15] With these ideas, the revolt shifted from a simple protest against taxes to a broader revolution. Many cities, while not quite in outright revolt, stopped sending taxes to the Royal Council and began to self-govern.[24]
Expansion of the Revolt[edit]
Blockade of Segovia[edit]
Segovia, the city of the first armed clash between the comuneros and the royalists
The situation moved closer to armed conflict on June 10. Rodrigo Ronquillo had been sent to Segovia by the Royal Council to investigate the recent murder of Segovia's legislator, but Segovia refused him entry. Unable to besiege a city of 30,000 with only a small force, Ronquillo instead set out to blockade foodstuffs and other supplies from entering Segovia. The people of Segovia, led by militia leader and noble Juan Bravo, rallied around the Comunidad. Segovia requested aid against Ronquillo's army from the Comunidades of Toledo and Madrid. The cities responded by sending their militias, captained by Juan López de Padilla and Juan de Zapata, who won in the first major confrontation between the forces of the king and the rebels.[8]
The Junta of Ávila[edit]
Other cities now followed the lead of Toledo and Segovia, deposing their governments. A revolutionary Cortes, La Santa Junta de las Comunidades ("Holy Assembly of the Communities"),[note b] held its first session in Ávila and declared itself the legitimate government deposing the Royal Council. Padilla was named Captain-General, and troops were assembled. Still, only four cities sent representatives at first: Toledo, Segovia, Salamanca, and Toro.[25]
Burning of Medina del Campo[edit]
The Castillo de la Mota of Medina del Campo
Faced with the situation in Segovia, Regent and Cardinal Adrian of Utrecht decided to use the royal artillery, located in nearby Medina del Campo, to take Segovia and defeat Padilla. Adrian ordered his commander Antonio de Fonseca to seize the artillery.[26] Fonseca arrived on August 21 in Medina, but encountered heavy resistance from the townspeople, as the city had strong trade links to Segovia. Fonseca ordered the setting of a fire to distract the resistance, but it grew out of control. Much of the town was destroyed, including a Franciscan monastery and a trade warehouse containing goods valued at more than 400,000 ducats.[27] Fonseca had to withdraw his troops, and the event was a public relations disaster for the government.[27][28] Uprisings throughout Castile occurred, even in cities that previously had been neutral such as Castile's capital, Valladolid. The establishment of the Comunidad of Valladolid caused the most important core of the Iberian plateau to declare for the rebels, upending the stability of the government. New members now joined the Junta of Ávila and the Royal Council looked discredited; Adrian had to flee to Medina de Rioseco as Valladolid fell.[28] The royal army, with many of its soldiers unpaid for months, started to disintegrate.[26]
The Junta of Tordesillas[edit]
Joanna the Mad, officially the Queen and co-regent of Castile with her son Charles, actually had no power whatsoever
The comunero army now properly organized itself, integrating the militias of Toledo, Madrid, and Segovia. Once told of Fonseca's attack, the comunero forces went to Medina del Campo and took possession of the artillery that had just been denied to Fonseca's troops.[29] On August 29, the comuneros' army arrived at Tordesillas with the goal of declaring Queen Joanna the sole sovereign. The Junta moved from Ávila to Tordesillas at the Queen's request and invited cities that had not yet sent representatives to do so.[30] A total of thirteen cities were represented in the Junta of Tordesillas: Burgos, Soria, Segovia, Ávila, Valladolid, León, Salamanca, Zamora, Toro, Toledo, Cuenca, Guadalajara, and Madrid.[31] The only invited cities that failed to attend were the four Andalusian cities: Seville, Granada, Cordova, and Jaén. Since most of the kingdom was represented at Tordesillas, the Junta renamed itself the Cortes y Junta General del Reino ("General Assembly of the Kingdom").[32] On September 24, 1520, the mad Queen, for the only time, presided over the Cortes.[33]
The legislators met with Queen Joanna and explained the purpose of the Cortes: to proclaim her sovereignty and restore lost stability to the kingdom. The next day, September 25, the Cortes issued a declaration pledging to use arms if necessary and for the whole to aid any one city that was threatened. On September 26, the Cortes of Tordesillas declared itself the new legitimate government and denounced the Royal Council. Oaths of self-defense were taken by all the cities represented over the week, finishing by September 30. The revolutionary government now had structure and a free hand to act, with the Royal Council still ineffective and confused.[34]
Scope of the rebellion[edit]
Bronze sculpture of Juan de Padilla in Toledo
The comuneros were strong in the central plateau of the Iberian Peninsula, as well as scattered other places such as Murcia. The rebels sought to propound their revolutionary ideas to the rest of the kingdom, but without much success. There were few attempts at rebellion elsewhere, such as in Galicia to the northwest or in Andalusia to the south.[35] Comunidades in the south were set up in Jaén, Úbeda, and Baeza, unique in Andalusia, but with time they were drawn back into the royalists. Murcia stayed with the rebel cause, but did not coordinate much with the Junta, and the rebellion there had a character closer to the nearby Revolt of the Brotherhoods in Valencia in Aragon.[36] In Extremadura to the southwest, the city of Plasencia joined the Comunidades, but this was undermined by the close proximity of other royalist cities such as Ciudad Rodrigo and Cáceres.[35] A close correlation can be drawn between poor economic fortunes over the previous twenty years and the rebellion; central Castile suffered from agricultural failure and other setbacks under the Royal Council, while Andalusia was relatively prosperous with its maritime trade. Andalusia's leadership also feared that in the instability of a civil war, the Moriscos of Granada would likely revolt.[37]
The rebels were strongest in the central plateau of Spain; the royalists controlled Andalusia in the South and Galicia in the North. Aragon was distracted by the Revolt of the Brotherhoods, and Navarre was occupied by Castilian troops who guarded against the return of the Navarrese king and the French. Rebel cities are in purple; Royalist cities are in green; cities with both elements present or that vacillated are in both colors.
Popular and governmental response[edit]
Adrian of Utrecht, future Pope Adrian VI, was considered an effective regent despite the difficult situation. He spearheaded the recruitment of nobility to the royalist side, and two Castilian co-regents were appointed to lessen the appearance of foreign control.
Turning of the nobles[edit]
The growing success of the comuneros emboldened people to accuse members of the old government of complicity with royal abuses. The protests attacked the landed nobility as well, many of whom had illegally taken property during the reign of the regents and weak kings after Isabella's death. In Dueñas, the Count of Buendía's vassals revolted against him on September 1, 1520, encouraged by rebel monks.[38] This uprising was followed by others of a similar anti-feudal nature.[39] The leadership of the comuneros was forced to take a stance on these new rebellions; reluctant to openly endorse them, the Junta initially denounced them but did nothing to oppose them.[40] The dynamics of the uprising thus changed profoundly, as it could now jeopardize the status of the entire manorial system. The nobles had previously been somewhat sympathetic to the cause due to their loss of privileges to the central government. However, these new developments lead to a dramatic drop in support for the comuneros from aristocrats, who were frightened by the more radical elements of the revolution.[38]
Response of Charles V[edit]
At first, Charles seemed not to grasp the magnitude of the revolt. He continued to demand payments from Castile; with the government of Castile still in arrears, Cardinal Adrian found it impossible to secure any new loans.[24] A letter from Cardinal Adrian on August 25 warned Charles of the severity of the situation:
Your Highness is making a great error if you think that you will be able to collect and make use of this tax; there is no one in the Kingdom, not in Seville or Valladolid or any other city who will ever pay anything of it; all the grandees and members of the council are amazed that Your Highness has scheduled payments from these funds.[24]
—  Adrian of Utrecht
Once he realized that a full-fledged revolution was underway, Charles responded vigorously. Through Cardinal Adrian, he undertook new policy initiatives, such as canceling the taxes granted in the Cortes of Corunna. Most important was the appointment of two new Castilian co-regents: the Constable of Castile, Íñigo Fernández, and the Admiral of Castile, Fadrique Enríquez.[41] This negated two of the most salient complaints of the rebels. In addition, Adrian approached the nobles to convince them that their best interests lay with the king. The Royal Council was re-established in the fief of Admiral Enríquez, Medina de Rioseco, which enabled the Council to be nearer to the revolting cities and reassure skeptical supporters.[42] While the royal army was still in tatters, many high nobles maintained their own well-trained mercenary armies—armies that with the revolt's recent radicalization would now fight for the king.[28]
Organization, funding, and diplomacy[edit]
The first political defeats of the comuneros came in October 1520. The comuneros' attempt to use Queen Joanna for legitimacy did not bear fruit, as she blocked their initiatives and refused to sign any edicts.[43] In turn, dissenting voices inside the comuneros now began to be heard, especially in Burgos. The wavering position of Burgos was soon known to the royalists, and the Constable of Castile negotiated with Burgos's government. The Royal Council granted a number of significant concessions to Burgos in exchange for them leaving the Junta.[44]
Following this incident, the Royal Council hoped that other cities would imitate Burgos and leave the comuneros peacefully. Valladolid, the former seat of royal power, was considered especially likely to turn, but too many supporters of the king had left city politics and lost their influence. It remained rebel-controlled.[45] The Admiral of Castile continued his campaign to try to convince the comuneros to return to the royal government and thereby avoid a violent suppression.[46] This attitude concealed a great shortage of funds on the royal side.[47]
During October and November 1520, both sides accepted that a military conclusion would soon be necessary and actively devoted themselves to fundraising, recruiting soldiers, and training their troops. The comuneros organized their militias in the major cities and levied new taxes on the countryside; they also took measures aimed at eliminating waste, routinely auditing their treasurers and dismissing those thought to be corrupt.[48] The royal government, which had lost much of its revenue due to the revolt, sought loans from Portugal and from conservative Castilian bankers, who saw reassuring signs in the switch of the allegiance of Burgos.[47]
Battle of Tordesillas[edit]
Main article: Military history of the Revolt of the Comuneros § Battle of Tordesillas
Leadership disputes[edit]
The royal army, commanded by the Constable of Castile's son, the Count of Haro, consisted of 6,000 infantry, 2,100 cavalry, and 12–15 artillery pieces. Pedro Girón's rebel force was larger but slower, with 10,000 infantry, 900 cavalry, and 13 artillery pieces. The rebels' deficiency in cavalry would hurt them throughout the war.[49]
Gradually, both the city of Toledo and its leader Juan López de Padilla lost influence within the Junta, though Padilla retained popularity and prestige among the commoners. Two new figures emerged within the Comunidades, Pedro Girón and Antonio Osorio de Acuña. Girón was one of the most powerful nobles who supported the comuneros; his rebellion is thought to originate from Charles' refusal to grant Girón the prestigious Duchy of Medina-Sidonia a year prior to the war. Antonio de Acuña was the Bishop of Zamora. Acuña was also the head of the Comunidad in Zamora and the leader of its army, which included more than 300 priests.[50][51]
On the royalist side, the nobles could not agree on what tactics to use. Some preferred to directly challenge the rebels in combat, while others such as the Constable of Castile favored continued waiting and the building of defensive fortifications. The Admiral of Castile preferred negotiations and exhausting all the possible peaceful options first.[52] Patience, however, began to run thin; armies were expensive to maintain once assembled. In late November 1520, both armies took positions between Medina de Rioseco and Tordesillas, and a confrontation was inevitable.[53]
Royal capture[edit]
With Pedro Girón in command, the army of the comuneros advanced on Medina de Rioseco, following the orders of the Junta. Girón established his headquarters in Villabrágima, a town merely 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) from the royalist army. The royalists occupied nearby villages to cut communication lines back to other comuneros.[53]
This situation continued until December 2, when Girón, apparently thinking the royal army would remain entrenched,[note c] moved his forces west to the small town of Villalpando.[54] The town surrendered the next day without resistance, and the troops began looting the estates in the area. However, with this movement, the comuneros left the path to Tordesillas completely unprotected. The royal army took advantage of the blunder, marching by night on December 4 and occupying Tordesillas the next day. The small rebel garrison was overwhelmed.[49]
Seizure of Tordesillas marked a serious defeat for the comuneros, who lost Queen Joanna and with her their claim to legitimacy. In addition, thirteen representatives of the Junta were imprisoned, though others fled and escaped.[54] Morale fell among the rebels, and much angry criticism was directed towards Pedro Girón for his maneuvering of the troops out of position and for his failure to attempt to retake Tordesillas or capture Medina de Rioseco. Girón was obliged to resign from his post and withdrew from the war.[55]
Events of December and January[edit]
Reorganization of the comuneros[edit]
Following the loss of Tordesillas, the comuneros regrouped in Valladolid. The Junta reconvened on December 15, but with only eleven cities represented, down from a height of fourteen. Soria and Guadalajara's representatives did not return, and Burgos had left earlier.[56] Valladolid would be the third capital of the rebels, after Ávila and Tordesillas.[57]
The situation was somewhat worse for the army, with a large number of desertions in Valladolid and Villalpando. This forced the rebels to intensify their recruitment drives, especially in Toledo, Salamanca, and Valladolid itself. With these new recruits and the arrival of Juan de Padilla to Valladolid, the rebel military apparatus was rebuilt and morale bolstered. At the beginning of 1521, the comuneros prepared for an all-out war, despite disagreements within the movement. Some suggested seeking a peaceful resolution, while others favored continuing the war. Those who favored war were divided between two tactics: occupy Simancas and Torrelobatón, a less ambitious proposal defended by Pedro Laso de la Vega; or lay siege to Burgos, a tactic favored by Padilla.[58]
Military initiatives in Palencia and Burgos[edit]
Arco de Santa María in Burgos, one of the few cities loyal to the king on the Iberian plateau
In the far north of Castile, the rebel army began a series of operations conducted by Antonio de Acuña, bishop of Zamora. They received orders from the Junta on December 23 to try and raise a rebellion in Palencia. They were tasked with expelling royalists, collecting taxes on behalf of the Junta, and creating an administration sympathetic to the comuneros cause. Acuña's army made a series of raids into the area around Dueñas, raising more than 4,000 ducats and inspiring the peasantry. He returned to Valladolid in early 1521, then came back to Dueñas on January 10 to begin a major offensive against the nobles of Tierra de Campos. The nobles' land and holdings were completely devastated.[51][59]
In mid-January, Pedro de Ayala, Count of Salvatierra, joined the comuneros and organized an army of about two thousand men who set about raiding the north of Castile.[60] Nearby, Burgos awaited the fulfillment of the pledges made by Cardinal Adrian after they had joined the royalist cause two months prior. The slow response led to dissatisfaction and uncertainty in the city. Ayala and Acuña, aware of this situation, decided to besiege Burgos, Ayala from its north and Acuña from its south. They also sought to undermine the defenses by encouraging a revolt of the inhabitants of Burgos.[59]
Royalist response[edit]
Still in Germany, Charles V issued the Edict of Worms on December 17, 1520 (not to be confused with the Edict of Worms of May 25, 1521, against Martin Luther), which condemned 249 prominent Comunidad members. For secular rebels, the punishment was death; clergy were to receive lighter penalties. Similarly, the edict also declared that those who supported the Comunidades were traitors, disloyal, rebels, and infidels.[61]
The Royal Council's next move was the occupation of Ampudia in Palencia, a town loyal to the Count of Salvatierra. The Junta sent Padilla to meet Acuña; their combined force besieged the royal army at the castle of Mormojón. The royal army slipped away by nightfall, and Mormojón was forced to pay tribute to avoid being pillaged. Ampudia was recovered by the rebels the next day, January 16.[62]
Meanwhile, the rebellion in Burgos scheduled for January 23 was a failure due to poor coordination with the besieging army; it started two days early and was easily crushed. The comuneros of Burgos had to surrender, and this was the last rebellion to be seen in Castile.[59][62]
Rebel campaigns of early 1521[edit]
Padilla's decision on the rebels' next move[edit]
The taking of the Castle of Torrelobatón, built in the 13th century, provided a much-needed victory for the comuneros. The castle was renovated in 2007 and is now a tourist site.
After abandoning the siege of Burgos due to the failure of its revolt, Padilla decided to return to Valladolid, while Acuña opted to resume his skirmishing and harassment of noble properties around Tierra de Campos. With this series of actions, Acuña intended to destroy or occupy the homes of the prominent nobles. The rebels now set themselves completely against the manorial system. This would be one of the strongest features of the second phase of the rebellion.[62]
After the recent setbacks suffered by the comuneros, Padilla realized that they needed a victory to raise morale. He decided to take Torrelobatón and its castle. Torrelobatón was a stronghold halfway between Tordesillas and Medina de Rioseco, and was very close to Valladolid. Taking it would grant the rebels an excellent fortress for launching military operations and remove a threat on Valladolid.[63]
Battle of Torrelobatón[edit]
On February 21, 1521, the siege of Torrelobatón began. Outnumbered, the town nevertheless resisted for four days, thanks to its walls. On February 25, the comuneros entered the town and subjected it to a massive looting spree as a reward to the troops. Only churches were spared.[64] The castle resisted for another two days. The comuneros then threatened to hang all of the inhabitants, at which point the castle surrendered. The defenders did secure an agreement to spare half of the goods inside the castle, thus avoiding further looting.[65]
The victory in Torrelobatón lifted the spirits of the rebel camp while worrying the royalists about the rebel advance, exactly as Padilla hoped. The faith of the nobles in Cardinal Adrian was again shaken, as he was accused of having done nothing to avoid losing Torrelobatón. The Constable of Castile began to send troops to the Tordesillas area to contain the rebels and prevent any further advances.[66]
Despite the renewed enthusiasm among the rebels, a decision was made to remain in their positions near Valladolid without pressing their advantage or launching a new attack. This caused many of the soldiers to return to their home communities, tired of waiting for salaries and new orders.[67] This was a problem the comunero forces had throughout the war; they possessed only a small number of full-time soldiers, and their militias were constantly "dissolving and recruiting."[68] A serious attempt to negotiate a peaceful end to the war was tried again by the moderates, but was undercut by extremists of both sides.[69]
In the north, after the failure of the siege of Burgos in January, the Count of Salvatierra resumed his campaign. He set off to cause an uprising in Merindades, the homeland of the Constable of Castile, and besieged Medina de Pomar and Frías.[60]
Acuña's southern campaign[edit]
Main article: Military history of the Revolt of the Comuneros § Acuña's campaign, March–April
The Church of the Virgin of Highest Grace in Mora, completely reconstructed after royalist troops set fire to it while 50 refugees took shelter inside. The royalist commander Prior Zúñiga denied responsibility.[70]
William de Croÿ, the young Flemish Archbishop of Toledo appointed by Charles, died in January 1521 in Worms, Germany. In Valladolid, the Junta proposed to Antonio de Acuña that he submit himself as a candidate for the seat.[51][71]
Acuña departed for Toledo in February with a small force under his command. He traveled south, declaring his impending claim on the archdiocese to every village as he passed. This raised enthusiasm among the commoners, who received him with cheers, but aroused suspicion in the aristocracy. They feared Acuña might attack their holdings as he did in Tierra de Campos. The Marquis of Villena and Duke of Infantado contacted Acuña and persuaded him to sign a pact of mutual neutrality.[71]
Acuña soon had to confront Antonio de Zúñiga, who had been appointed commander of the royalist army in the Toledo area. Zúñiga was a prior in the Knights of St. John, who maintained a base in Castile at the time.[72] Acuña received information that Zúñiga was in the area of Corral de Almaguer, and pursued battle with him near Tembleque. Zúñiga drove the rebel forces off, and then launched a counterattack of his own between Lillo and El Romeral, inflicting a crushing defeat on Acuña. Acuña, a relentless self-promoter, tried to minimize the loss and even claimed that he had emerged victorious from the confrontation.[51][73]
Undaunted, Acuña continued into Toledo. He appeared at the Zocodover Plaza in the heart of the city on March 29, 1521, Good Friday. The crowd gathered around him and took him directly to the cathedral, claiming the archbishop's chair for him.[51][70] The next day he met with María Pacheco, wife of Juan de Padilla and de facto leader of the Toledo Comunidad in her husband's absence. A brief rivalry emerged between the two, but it was resolved after mutual attempts at reconciliation.[74]
Once settled in the archdiocese of Toledo, Acuña began to recruit any men he could find, enlisting soldiers from fifteen to sixty years old. After royalist troops burned the town of Mora on April 12, Acuña returned to the countryside with roughly 1,500 men under his command. He moved into Yepes, and from there conducted raids and operations against royalist-controlled rural areas. He first attacked and pillaged Villaseca de la Sagra, then faced Zúñiga again in an inconclusive battle near the Tagus river in Illescas.[75] Light skirmishing near Toledo would continue until news of Villalar ended the war.[75]
Battle of Villalar[edit]
Main article: Battle of Villalar
A 19th century work by Manuel Picolo López depicting the Battle of Villalar
In early April 1521, the royalist side moved to combine their armies and threaten Torrelobatón. The Constable of Castile moved his troops (including soldiers recently transferred from the defense of Navarre) southwest from Burgos to meet with the Admiral's forces near Tordesillas.[66] Meanwhile, the comuneros reinforced their troops at Torrelobatón, which was far less secure than the comuneros preferred. Their forces were suffering from desertions, and the presence of royalist artillery would make Torrelobatón's castle vulnerable. Juan López de Padilla considered withdrawing to Toro to seek reinforcements in early April, but wavered. He delayed his decision until the early hours of April 23, losing considerable time and allowing the royalists to unite their forces in Peñaflor.[76][77]
The combined royalist army pursued the comuneros. Again, the royalists had a strong advantage in cavalry, with their army consisting of 6,000 infantry and 2,400 cavalry against Padilla's 7,000 infantry and 400 cavalry. Heavy rain slowed Padilla's infantry more than the royalist cavalry and rendered the primitive firearms of the rebels' 1,000 arquebusiers nearly useless.[76] Padilla hoped to reach the relative safety of Toro and the heights of Vega de Valdetronco, but his infantry was too slow. He gave battle with the harrying royalist cavalry at the town of Villalar. The cavalry charges scattered the rebel ranks, and the battle became a slaughter. There were an estimated 500–1,000 rebel casualties and many desertions.[77]
The three most important leaders of the rebellion were captured: Juan López de Padilla, Juan Bravo, and Francisco Maldonado. They were beheaded the next morning in the Plaza of Villalar, with a large portion of the royalist nobility present.[78] The remains of the rebel army at Villalar fragmented, with some attempting to join Acuña's army near Toledo and others deserting. The rebellion had been struck a crippling blow.[79]
End of the war[edit]
After the Battle of Villalar, the towns of northern Castile soon succumbed to the king's troops, with all its cities returning their allegiance to the king by early May. Only Madrid and Toledo kept their Comunidades alive.[80]
Resistance of Toledo[edit]
María Pacheco receives notice of the death of her husband at Villalar. The painting is a 19th-century work by Vicente Borrás.
The first news of Villalar arrived in Toledo on April 26, but was largely ignored by the local Comunidad. The magnitude of the defeat became apparent in a few days, after the first survivors began arriving in the city and confirmed the fact that the three rebel leaders had been executed. Toledo was declared in mourning over the death of Juan de Padilla.[81]
After the death of Padilla, Bishop Acuña lost popularity in favour of María Pacheco, Padilla's widow.[82] People began to suggest negotiating with the royalists, seeking to avoid further suffering in the city. The situation looked even worse after the surrender of Madrid on May 11.[80] The fall of Toledo seemed only to be a matter of time.[80]
However, one ray of hope remained for the rebels. Castile had withdrawn some of its troops from occupied Navarre to fight the comuneros, and King Francis I of France used the opportunity to invade with support from the Navarrese. The royalist army was forced to march on Navarre to respond rather than besiege Toledo. Acuña left Toledo to travel to Navarre, but he was recognized and caught. It is disputed whether he was seeking to join the French and continue fighting, or was simply fleeing.[83]
María Pacheco took control of the city and the remains of the rebel army, living in the Alcázar, collecting taxes, and strengthening defenses. She requested the intervention of her uncle, the respected Marquis of Villena, to negotiate with the Royal Council, hoping he would be able to obtain better concessions. The Marquis eventually abandoned the negotiations, and María Pacheco took on personal negotiations with Prior Zúñiga, the commander of the besieging forces. Her demands, though somewhat galling to honor, were ultimately minor, such as guaranteeing the property and reputation of her children.[84]
Still concerned about the French, the royal government gave in. With the support of all parties, the surrender of Toledo was orchestrated on October 25, 1521. Thus, on October 31 the comuneros left the Alcázar of Toledo and new officials were appointed to run the city. The truce guaranteed the freedom and property of all the comuneros.[84]
Revolt of February 1522[edit]
The new administrator of Toledo restored order and brought the city back under royal control. However, he also provoked former comuneros.[85] María Pacheco continued her presence in the city and refused to hand over all the hidden weapons until Charles V personally signed the agreements reached with the Order of St. John. This unstable situation came to an end on February 3, 1522, when the generous terms of the surrender were annulled. Royal soldiers filled the city and the administrator ordered Pacheco's execution.[85] Riots broke out in protest. The incident was temporarily remedied thanks to the intervention of María de Mendoza, the sister of María Pacheco. Another truce was granted, and while the former comuneros were defeated, the distraction was exploited by María Pacheco to escape to Portugal disguised as a farmer.[86]
Pardon of 1522[edit]
Charles V returned to Spain on July 16, 1522.[87] Acts of repression and retaliation against former comuneros did occur, but only sporadically. Embarrassingly large numbers of important people had supported the comuneros, or at least were suspiciously slow to declare allegiance to the king, and Charles thought it unwise to press the issue too much.[88]
Back in Valladolid, Charles declared a general pardon on November 1.[89] The pardon gave amnesty to everyone involved in the revolt with the exception of 293 comuneros, a small figure given the huge number of rebels. Both Pacheco and Bishop Acuña were among the 293 excluded from the pardon. More pardons were issued later, after pressure from the Cortes; by 1527, the repression was completely at end. Of the 293, 23 were executed, 20 died in prison, 50 purchased amnesty, and 100 were pardoned later. The fates of the rest are unknown.[88]
Aftermath[edit]
María Pacheco successfully escaped to Portugal, where she lived in exile the remaining ten years of her life. Bishop Acuña, captured in Navarre, was stripped of his ecclesiastical standing and executed after he killed a guard while trying to escape.[90] Pedro Girón received a pardon conditional on him going into exile to Oran in North Africa, where he served as a commander against the Moors.[91] Queen Joanna was locked in Tordesillas by her son. She would remain there for thirty-five years, the rest of her life.[92]
Emperor Charles V would go on to rule one of the largest and most sprawling empires in European history. As a consequence, Charles was nearly constantly at war, fighting France, England, the Papal States, the Ottoman Turks, the Aztecs, the Incas, and the Protestant Schmalkaldic League during his reign. Spain would provide the bulk of the Habsburgs' armies and financial resources over this period. Charles placed Castilians in high governmental positions in both Castile and the Empire at large, and generally left the administration of Castile in Castilian hands.[93] In that sense, the revolt could be considered successful.[93]
Some of the reforms of Isabella I which reduced noble power were reversed as a price for luring the nobility to the royalist side. However, Charles understood that noble encroachment of power had helped cause the revolt, and embarked upon a new reform program. Unpopular, corrupt, and ineffective officials were replaced; judicial functions of the Royal Council were limited; and local courts were revitalized.[94] Charles also adjusted the membership of the Royal Council; its hated president was replaced, the aristocracy's role reduced, and more gentry were added to it.[94][95] Realizing that the urban elite needed to have a stake in the royal government once more, Charles gave many of them positions, privileges, and government salaries.[96] The Cortes, while not as important as the comuneros had hoped, nevertheless maintained its power; it was still required to approve new taxes and could advise the king.[97] Charles also discouraged his officials from using overly coercive methods, after seeing his heavy-handed treatment of the Cortes of Corunna backfire.[98] If anything, the co-option of the middle class worked too well; when Charles' successor King Phillip II demanded a ruinously large tax increase in the 1580s, the Cortes was too dependent on the Crown for money to effectively resist policies that would wreck the economy.[99]
Later influence[edit]
Juan Martín Díez, "El Empecinado" ("The Undaunted"), who tried to rehabilitate the reputation of the comuneros in 1821
The revolt, fresh in the memory of Spain, is referenced in several literary works during Spain's Golden Age. Don Quixote references the rebellion in a conversation with Sancho, and Francisco de Quevedo uses the word "comunero" as a synonym for "rebel" in his works.[100][101]
In the 18th century, the comuneros were not held in high regard by the Spanish Empire. The government was not amenable to encouraging rebellions, and only used the term to condemn opposition. In the Revolt of the Comuneros in Paraguay, the rebels did not take the name willingly; it was only meant to disparage them as traitors.[102] Another Revolt of the Comuneros in New Granada (modern Colombia) was similarly unrelated to the original except in name.[103]
At the beginning of the 19th century, the image of the comuneros began to be rehabilitated by scholars such as Manuel Quintana as precursors of freedom and martyrs against absolutism.[104] The decline of Castilian liberty was linked to the later decline of Spain.[105] The first major commemorative event came in 1821, the third centenary of the Battle of Villalar. Juan Martín Díez, a nationalistic liberal military leader who had fought in the resistance against Napoleon, led an expedition to find and exhume the remains of the three leaders executed in 1521. Díez praised the comuneros on behalf of the liberal government in power at the time, likely the first positive governmental recognition for their cause. This view was challenged by conservatives who viewed a centralized state as modern and progressive, especially after the anarchy and fragmentation of the 1868 Revolution in Spain.[105] Manuel Danvila, a conservative government minister, published the six-volume Historia critica y documentada de las Comunidades de Castilla from 1897 to 1900, one of the most important works of scholarship on the revolt.[106] Drawing on collected original sources, Danvila emphasized the fiscal demands of the comuneros, and cast them as traditionalist, reactionary, medieval, and feudal.[105] Though a liberal, intellectual Gregorio Marañón shared the dim view of the comuneros that again prevailed in Spain; he cast the conflict as one between a modern, progressive state open to beneficent foreign influence against a conservative, reactionary, and xenophobic Spain hypersensitive to religious and cultural deviance with an insistence on spurious racial purity.[105]
A floral offering at Villalar, on Castile and León Day, April 23, 2006
General Franco's government from 1939 to 1975 also encouraged an unfavorable interpretation of the comuneros.[107] According to approved historians such as José María Pemán, the revolt was fundamentally an issue of petty Spanish regionalism, something which Franco did his best to discourage. Additionally, the comuneros did not properly appreciate Spain's "imperial destiny."[108]
Since the mid-twentieth century, others have sought more materialist reasons for the revolt. Historians such as José Antonio Maravall and Joseph Pérez portray the developing revolt as alliances of different social coalitions around shifting economic interests, with the "industrial bourgeoisie" of artisans and woolworkers combining with the intellectuals and the low nobility against the aristocrats and the merchants.[109] Maravall, who views the revolt as one of the first modern revolutions, especially stresses the ideological conflict and intellectual nature of the revolt, with features such as the first proposed written constitution of Castile.[110]
The April 23, 2007 gathering at Villalar. Villalar was renamed Villalar de los Comuneros in 1932, under the liberal Second Republic.[111]
With Spain's transition to democracy following Franco's death, celebration of the comuneros started to become permissible again. On April 23, 1976, a small ceremony was held clandestinely in Villalar; only two years later, in 1978, the event had become a huge demonstration of 200,000 in support of Castilian autonomy.[107] The autonomous community of Castile and León was created in response to public demand in 1983, and it recognized April 23 as an official holiday in 1986.[112] Similarly, each February 3 since 1988 has been celebrated by the Castilian nationalist party Tierra Comunera in Toledo. The celebration highlights the roles of Juan López de Padilla and María Pacheco, and is done in memory of the rebellion in 1522, the last event of the war.[113]
List of people associated with the Revolt of the Comuneros
Military history of the Revolt of the Comuneros
Revolt of the Brotherhoods
Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre
Italian War of 1521–1526
^ This article uses the term "tax" to encompass a variety of revenue-raising methods the government used. Briefly, servicios were flat monetary grants paid to the treasury; the encabezamiento was a portion of the sales tax towns collected sent to the government; and the cruzada ("crusade") was a special and semi-voluntary contribution that counted as an indulgence and was generally used for war against the Muslims. Charles wanted to abolish the lenient encabezamiento and return to an older and harsher system of direct royal control of tolls, pasturage fees, and the like. He also requested large servicios at the Cortes he held. Part of the revenue problem the government had was that income from the cruzada had fallen greatly since the Reconquista had finished in 1492.[7]
^ Junta, meaning "Congress" or "Assembly," did not yet have the negative connotation of "Oligarchical military dictatorship" in the 16th century.
^ There exists a theory that Girón's errors were in fact an intentional betrayal of the comuneros. Considering his moderate stance and later pardon by the government, historians such as Seaver consider this possible, but unlikely.[49]
^ a b Haliczer 1981, p. 10.
^ Haliczer 1981, p. 113.
^ a b Haliczer 1981, p. 151.
^ Haliczer 1981, p. 66.
^ Haliczer 1981, p. 147. The silk industry is held up as particularly relevant, as the Moors had been deeply involved in it; more generally, many Muslim converts to Christianity who had not been expelled still emigrated from 1500 onward.
^ a b c Haliczer 1981, p. 147.
^ Lynch 1964, p. 36.
^ a b c d Lynch 1964, p. 38.
^ J. L. Díez 1977, p. 7. "Tú, tierra de Castilla, muy desgraciada y maldita eres al sufrir que un tan noble reino como eres, sea gobernado por quienes no te tienen amor."
^ a b Seaver 1928, p. 50.
^ a b c Pérez 2001, p. 39–40.
^ Seaver 1928, p. 75.
^ Seaver 1928, p. 77–79.
^ Haliczer 1981, p. 161, and Seaver 1928, p. 87. Pérez 2001 lists the final fall as happening on May 31; this is (almost certainly) referring to the formal capture of the Alcázar. The defending forces had long since left by then.
^ Haliczer 1981, p. 3.
^ Pérez 2001, p. 50–52.
^ a b Seaver 1928, p. 129.
^ a b c Haliczer 1981, p. 6.
^ Pérez 2001, p. 60.
^ Seaver 1928, p. 164.
^ Pérez 2001, p. 61. In the spelling of the time, it was rendered Cortes e Junta General del Reyno.
^ a b Pérez 2001, p. 146–147.
^ Pérez 2001, p. 155.
^ Haliczer 1981, p. 183, 205.
^ Seaver 1928, p. 155–156.
^ a b c Seaver 1928, p. 200–202.
^ a b c d e Guilarte 1983.
^ a b Pérez 2001, p. 78.
^ a b Haliczer 1981, p. 189
^ Pérez 1970, p. 262. Note that the original Junta of Tordesillas had thirteen cities represented, not fourteen; Murcia joined later.
^ Pérez 2001, p. 95
^ a b c Pérez 2001, p. 105
^ a b Seaver 1928, p. 294
^ "Texto íntegro del Edicto de Worms" (in Spanish). Cervantes Virtual Library. 1520-12-17. Retrieved 2008-07-20. Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ a b c Seaver 1928, p. 228, and Pérez 2001, p. 104. The two accounts disagree on the amount of Mormojón's tribute: Seaver says 1,500 ducats, and Pérez 2,000.
^ Pérez 2001, p. 107. "Los asaltantes amenzaron con ahorcar a todos los inhabitantes si no se rendía."
^ a b Pérez 2001, p. 110.
^ a b Seaver 1928, p. 333–334.
^ Pérez 2001, p. 116
^ a b c Seaver 1928, p. 339.
^ a b Lynch 1964, p. 46.
^ Haliczer 1981, p. 218. The program was called "Stewards and gentlemen," and about 400 well-paid positions were handed out.
^ Cervantes, Miguel de (1615). "Volume 2, Chapter 43". Don Quixote de la Mancha (in Spanish). Rodolfo Schevill and Adolfo Bonilla; digital form and editing by Fred F. Jehle. p. 61. ISBN 0-394-90892-9. Retrieved 2008-09-27.
^ López, Adalberto (2005). The Colonial History of Paraguay: The Revolt of the Comuneros, 1721–1735. Transaction Publishers. p. 12. ISBN 0-87073-124-6.
^ Kuethe, Allan J. (1978). Military reform and society in New Granada, 1773–1808. University Presses of Florida. pp. 79–101. ISBN 0-8130-0570-1.
^ a b c d Haliczer 1981, p. 7. Haliczer is citing Gutiérrez Nieto 1973, p. 57–58 for Quintana's views; p. 84 for Danvila's views; and p. 98 for Marañón's views.
^ a b González Clavero, Mariano (2002). "Fuerzas políticas en el proceso autonómico de Castilla y León: 1975–1983". Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes (in Spanish): 337–342. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
^ Gutiérrez Nieto 1973, p. 96. Nieto is referring to Pemán's Breve Historia a España, p. 208–211.
^ Haliczer 1981, p. 8. Haliczer is citing Pérez 1970, p. 19.
^ "20.000 personas celebran en Villalar la fiesta de Castilla y León" (in Spanish). Cadena SER. 2004-04-23. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
^ "Ley por la que se declara Fiesta de la Comunidad de Castilla y León el día 23 de abril" (in Spanish). Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado. 1986-04-17. Retrieved 2008-10-18.
^ "Toledo celebra el XX Homenaje a los Comuneros" (in Spanish). Tierra Comunera. Retrieved 2008-07-25.
English language sources
Haliczer, Stephen (1981). The Comuneros of Castile: The Forging of a Revolution, 1475–1521. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-299-08500-7.
Lynch, John (1964). Spain under the Habsburgs. (vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, Townsend (1963). The Castles and the Crown. New York: Coward-McCann.
Seaver, Henry Latimer (1966) [1928]. The Great Revolt in Castile: A Study of the Comunero Movement of 1520–1521. New York: Octagon Books.
Spanish and other language sources
This article incorporates text translated from the Spanish Wikipedia article Guerra de las Comunidades de Castilla, licensed under the GFDL.
Díez, José Luis (1977). Los Comuneros de Castilla (in Spanish). Madrid: Editorial Mañana. ISBN 84-7421-025-9. OCLC 4188611.
Guilarte, Alfonso María (1983). El obispo Acuña: Historia de un comunero (in Spanish). Valladolid: Ambito. ISBN 84-86047-13-7.
Maravall, José Antonio (1963). Las comunidades de Castilla: Una primera revolución moderna (in Spanish). Madrid: Revista de Occidente. OCLC 2182035.
Gutiérrez Nieto, Juan Ignacio (1973). Las comunidades como movimiento antiseñorial: La formación del bando realista en la Guerra Civil Castellana de 1520–1521 (in Spanish). Barcelona: Editorial Planeta. OCLC 862423.
Pérez, Joseph (1998) [1970]. La révolution des "Comunidades" de Castille, 1520–1521 (in French). Bordeaux: Institut d'études ibériques et ibéro-américaines de l'Université de Bordeaux. ISBN 84-323-0285-6.
Pérez, Joseph (2001). Los Comuneros (in Spanish). Madrid: La Esfera de los Libros, S.L. ISBN 84-9734-003-5.
Unrest in Spain, 1517–1523
Navarre (partially occupied, disputed)
Granada (annexed by Castile)
Royal Government
King Charles I of Castile and Aragon
Queen Joanna of Castile and Aragon
Cardinal Adrian of Utrecht
William de Croÿ, sieur de Chièvres
Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros
Germaine of Foix
List of important figures
Battle of Villalar
Juan de Padilla
Juan Bravo
Antonio Osorio de Acuña
María Pacheco
Francisco Maldonado
Joan Llorenç
Vicent Peris
The Hidden
Contemporary revolts
Frisian peasant rebellion (1515–1523)
Knights' Revolt (1522)
German Peasants' War (1524–1525)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolt_of_the_Comuneros&oldid=892776648"
1520s conflicts
1520s in Spain
Wars involving Spain
Revolutions in Spain
16th-century rebellions
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor
Rebellions in Spain
1520 in Spain
CS1 Spanish-language sources (es)
Articles containing Spanish-language text


text:
Archive for the 'Science' Category.
Idea For a Science Podcast
Preface: I only have time to go over a few podcasts, so it is possible that what I am suggesting already exists.
I think there should be a science podcast that focuses on one study a small number of related experiments/papers/studies to help teach people more about the scientific method.
There are plenty of podcasts that run through a bunch of unrelated studies, talking about recent discoveries. I think this is important, but I think that someone should go into what underlies all of this. Someone should talk about the scientific process and way of thinking.
Many scientists talk about how science is not just a collection of facts, but a method, a process, a viewpoint, a way of thinking. Many people are ignorant about both the facts and the principles. Many scientists touch upon these ideas, but only tangentially. One of the reasons this needs to be addressed is that today science is misunderstood, misrepresented and under attack.
In junior high school, I was told the basic steps are: Observation, hypothesis, experiment and conclusion.
Some podcasts do talk about some of the mechanics of science: the process of getting a degree, being a postdoc, getting funding.
I am proposing talking more about the scientific method and scientific thinking. One way would be to focus on one paper, or one study, talking to just the professors that were involved. (I know some physics papers can have a few hundred credited authors, so just a few will have to suffice.) Why did they do that experiment? Did they get the result they wanted? Did the experiment have to be halted? Was the paper accepted or rejected? How did they gather the data?
Perhaps a guest could be on to talk about a sequence of experiments they performed. Experiment A answered Question A, but that raised Question B, and answering that led to Question C, etc, etc.
The podcast could use each experiment to discuss themes such as: What makes an experiment a good experiment? What leads to success or failure? Why are some studies later retracted? Why do some stand the test of time?
We keep hearing that we need to get more young people interested in STEM and STEM careers, especially women and minorities. Talking about experiments in detail might give people a better idea of what it means to do science and what it means to be a scientist. When a lot of people think about what a scientist does, they think of someone in a lab wearing a white coat. A lot of scientists actually do work in labs and wear white coats (I think chemists and some biologists), but a lot do work in other settings (some biologists, geologists, climate scientists). And sometimes they are not very glamorous. There was a scientist on "Science Friday" who studied bats (I think it was Laura Kloepper; check her Twitter feed) and she said that when she goes into caves, she needs to wear a body suit because there are bats and bugs flying through the air and there are bugs and bat guano on the ground, and it's loud, and you get hot in the suit. It does not sound like fun. There are many scientists on Antarctica. While Antarctica has a stark, austere beauty in photos, from what I have heard just being takes a lot out of you.
One part that could be covered is: what is "peer review"? (This might fit better with a paper that did not get published.) Once there was a guest on Science Friday who had done some peer reviews for a scientific journal. The first time he was given a paper to review, he asked the editor how to do a peer review, and the editor said that he didn't know and the guest should just do a review. There are articles about it (see here and here), so maybe that one guy just had a bad experience.
I prefer when science podcasts talk about the natural sciences. I am never interested in stories about social media, and while online privacy is important, I think that should be on a security podcast and not a science podcast.
Some people might say these things are covered by skeptic podcasts. I think the skeptical movement has not done a good job of explaining the concept of skepticism. Many people conflate it with cynicism. Granted, since the skeptical movement is using the term correctly, I do not have an answer for this.
And there are a lot of people who misuse the word "skeptic" intentionally, like the so-called "climate change skeptics". They are not skeptics, they are deniers. The scientific consensus has only gotten stronger over time. The climate change deniers are ignoring or distorting the evidence, which is the opposite of skepticism. Some are against it because most of the solutions involve government involvement. Their worldview cannot offer a solution to a problem, so instead of admitting it, they pretend there is no problem. Given that scientists have been warning about climate change for years, there has been plenty of time for the private sector to come up with a solution.
One thing the climate change deniers have in common with the anti-evolution crowd is that they have misled the general public about what a "controversy" is in science. A scientific controversy is when scientists have a disagreement amongst themselves; I think the viability of string theory would count as a scientific controversy. If a scientific finding contradicts your religion, your ideology or your business model, it is not a scientific controversy. The problem is that you don't like what reality is telling us.
Another issue is that the skeptical movement encompasses science, it can also include other topics, like religion, vaccination, alternative medicine, paranormal, New Age, the Law of Attraction, homeopathy, a large percentage of the guests on Oprah.
On the other hand, people generally have a positive attitude towards science. (At least until it tells them something they do not like.)
So I am suggesting looking at science at the micro level (a single paper, study or experiment, or a small, related group of experiments) to explain science at a macro level; to help explain the scientific method and the steps of the scientific process.
Big Jim knows if society was more rational, we could accomplish big things.
"Maternity" by Joan Miro (20 April 1893 – 25 December 1983), assumed allowed under Fair Use.
Category: Science | 1 Comment
The Wicked Witch Is Dead
I actually jumped for joy when I read that Scalia is dead.
This is the best thing to happen to this country since Lee surrendered to Grant.
Some people are saying we should be respectful. Express condolences to his family.
Screw that.
Liberals have been nicer. Do we have anything to show for it?
As far as "respect": A man who was disrespectful towards others in life deserves none in death. I hated the man before he died. Frankly it would be illogical not to be glad he's dead.
As far as condolences to his family, from what I have read they have the same nasty views he did.
Someone on Twitter thought it was shameful for people to say bad things about Scalia since he had a family, and asked if we would say the same hateful things about our own fathers. I replied that since my father is a drunk who treated my mother like garbage, yes I do. Call a spade a spade.
One reason I really hated Scalia is that he claimed to believe in a religion whose founder told his followers to protect the poor and the powerless, yet he sided with the rich and the powerful every time. For a long time, Catholics in this country were discriminated against. Catholics were the other. Yet Scalia had no problem pulling the ladder up after himself. [1]
And I am tired of people saying how smart he was.
Scalia thought that there was more support for creationism than evolution. First off, this is not true. There is much more support for evolution. The Discovery Institute has had 20 years to make their case and publish some research. So far nothing. Anyone who says that evolution (or climate change) is not settled science frankly is not paying attention to science. (Yet, in true Taxicab Fallacy style, they have no problem enjoying the fruits of the scientific method.)
I am reminded of that episode of John Oliver's show where he starts moderating a debate on climate change. The denier says that the science is under debate. John Oliver says it is not, that at least 97% of climate scientists say that climate change is happening and that humans are causing it. He says in order to show the true scientific consensus he brings in a bunch of people wearing lab coats. As he said, this "debate" should not be happening. And the same is true for evolution.
Secondly, I think that goes against the position of the Catholic Church [2].
I suppose it takes a lot of intellectual talent and effort to spend your life saying that up is down, night is day and black is white. But if you go through your life being wrong about a lot of things, and using your intellect to justify things that are not true, then you are really very stupid.
And now, the strict constructionists are not only telling us we should not politicize his death, but that Obama should not appoint the next justice. Where does the constitution say he has to wait? And would they tell a Republican president to wait?
Lastly, some nutjobs are saying that Obama had Scalia killed. They think it's just "too convenient" that Scalia died. But let's remember Scalia was
A nasty, spiteful person
He's lucky he lasted as long as he did.
[1] Sidenote: There are some things in the Bible that sound pretty good: Be nice to everyone, give to the poor, don't pray in public. Yet many Christians act the exact opposite. Is there some grand conspiracy going on here? Atheists get the joke Bible that tells you to be nice, but once you convert you get the real Bible, the Jerk Bible.
[2] From the page cited:
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
So I guess they are not really affirming or denying evolution. Sort of like how they have no position on the Shroud of Turin. The Catholic hierarchy may not be smart, but they can be shrewd.
Cartoon image from the always-bizarre Uncyclopedia, assumed allowed under Fair Use and perhaps even Unfair Use (but who knows what the second one?).
Dancing skeletons from a 1493 woodcut by Michael Wolgemut, assumed allowed under Fair Use. Europeans considered many things up for grabs in that decade.
Image of crowd of scientists taken from Google search. It is a screen cap of John Oliver's show on HBO, assumed allowed under Fair Use.
Category: Politics, Religion, Science | Comments Off on The Wicked Witch Is Dead
Neil deGrasse Tyson On Science Deniers
Crooks and Liars embedded a video with Neil deGrasse Tyson on the place of science in our society. It's a good interview.
I mention it here because he talks about the taxicab fallacy. He does not use that term, but I think he expresses the basic idea.
The Immoral Minority had a post with another good NdT quote. There is a difference between scientific claims and political claims.
Just yesterday I listened to an episode of the Green News Report in which they covered the climate change "debate" between Bill Nye and Marsha Blackburn. Blackburn kept saying there is no scientific consensus on climate change. There is.
98% of climate scientists say it is happening and caused by humans. It is not a scientific controversy. A scientific controversy is when a sizable proportion of scientists in a field have not been able to make a determination. I do not know what the threshold is to stop saying a thesis is under debate, but I am guessing that it is lower than 98%.
A thesis might conflict with your political ideology. Or your religion. It might hurt your profit margin. It might inconvenience you. But all of those are different than scientific controversies.
Not everyone in this world believes in any sort of god or spirit. And not all who do are christian. And since there are so many denominations, obviously there is a lot of disagreement within christianity. So why don't conservatives apply the same "there is no agreement" logic to their religion?
Category: Ambient Echo, Politics, Religion, Science | Comments Off on Neil deGrasse Tyson On Science Deniers
Overheard Conversations On Airplanes
I have been travelling back and forth from Austin to Boise, Idaho for work over the past month. So I have spent quite a bit of time on airplanes and at airports. I have overheard a few interesting conversations.
On one flight, there was a guy who worked for a "non-denominational" christian organization. It was either a school or a non-profit, I cannot remember. I think it's kind of funny when christians label themselves "non-denominational". They seem to think this implies an objectivity or neutrality that does not really exist.
At one point he said that as a society "we put too much faith in science." I thought: You are in a metal tube filled with flammable liquid suspended thousands of feet in the air. You'd better have some faith in science. The taxicab fallacy at its finest.
If skeptics and atheists have "faith in science", it is not faith in the sense of worshipping an invisible deity whose behavior is consistent with non-existence, or belief in things without proof. It is the assumption that since the scientific method has increased our understanding of the world in the past that it will continue to do so. I think that as long as religion claims to be a method for understanding the world, it will always be incompatible with science. Besides, if religion had anything to do with technology, why didn't god tell people how to make airplanes 5,000 years ago?
Another conversation was with a guy who was a medical assistant at a clinic that did vision correction surgery. He said that Medicare reimburses them right away. But private insurance companies drag their feet. He said they have to submit claims to private insurance companies several times, but they only have to submit to Medicaid once. He said that about 50% of the people working at his clinic do nothing but deal with insurance companies. Do we really have the best health care system in the world?
Lastly, one time when I got back to Austin it was about 35 degrees Fahrenheit. I heard someone say that the day before it was in the 80s. Climate scientists have been predicting temperature volatility for years. Yet many people still think it's a big hoax.
Image from Uncyclopedia, assumed allowed under Fair Use. I do not have the time to determine if it is allowed under Unfair Use
Category: Politics, Religion, Science | Comments Off on Overheard Conversations On Airplanes
Yet More Austerity
Here are a few more links to articles about austerity.
This is an academic page on VoxEU.
Here is one from the New York Times by some professor at Cornell. At one point, he asks the question: If we are not going to spend money to repair infrastructure now, then when will we?
Here is one from Politicus that links to a Krugman article in which he points out that the pro-austerity crowd is not being honest. They really do not care whether it will help the economy. They just want to dismantle the welfare state and rip the safety net. If that is what they want, why not just argue for those things on their own merits?
He also makes an interesting point about motives: The pro-austerity crowd never seems to consider that the pro-stimulus crowd is pushing stimulus because the pro-stimulus crowd states and thinks that stimulus might be good for the economy. No, the austerity people insist the stimulus people have an agenda. After all, the austerity crowd has an ulterior motive. So they think that everybody else does as well.
We also see this in the climate change "debate". I used quotes because from a scientific perspective there is no debate about climate change.
Category: Delayed Reaction, Politics, Science | Comments Off on Yet More Austerity
Star Trek And Evolution
Star Trek has a history of touching on social issues. One of them is religion.
Although it is fiction, and deals with technology that may never exist and aliens who look a lot like humans, sometimes it does express a skeptical/scientific view on things.
There is a quote about evolution in the Enterprise episode "Dear Doctor" that I liked:
"Evolution is more than a theory. It is a fundamental scientific principle."
– Phlox, to Archer
Interesting that Memory Alpha has a page on evolution. Here is a quote from that page:
Ronald D. Moore commented: "Trek […] accepts evolution as a believable and valid theory. Gene himself felt this very strongly and although we do try to embrace many points of view and many beliefs, there are some matters on which we do make our feelings known. That said, I also think that anyone within the Trek universe who espoused a "creationist" or similar view as to the origins of life would find their beliefs respected — "respected" being fundamentally different than "believed." (AOL chat, 1997)
I don't know if Gene Roddenberry actually said these quotes, but his page on Wikiquotes has quite a few about religion. Here are two that I like:
I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will
We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.
Image from Memory Alpha, copyright owned by CBS, assumed allowed under Fair Use.
Category: Religion, Science, Star Trek | 3 Comments
2013-03-17 Quotes
From an editorial on the LA Times website, here is a quote from the comments addressing the idea of whether or not humans are affecting the climate:
Gee, I'm so confused. Who should I believe? The worlds largest ReInsurance companies, the US Dept of Defense, the CIA, the National Science Foundation, every major public science institution, and 98% of climate scientitsts, OR
some lame brained right-wing bloggers with home made websites ??
In a related note, I do consider someone's website when judging whether or not they know what they are talking about in general. I know a lot of people in technology love to slam WordPress, but it's easy to use and there are a lot of nice themes for it. Maybe writing someone off as a kook for using the blink tag is wrong, but if you want me to change my life, at least put some thought into your message.
Here is another one, responding to the idea that Obama should compromise to "gain credibility" with conservatives:
Ah, the endless quest of the center left to give things away to "bolster credibility." I wrote a whole post about this — "credibility is like a rainbow" — so I won't write it all again. Suffice to say, Obama cut taxes for almost every American, presided over a massive expansion in oil and gas production (during a sharp decline in carbon emissions), deported millions of illegal immigrants, killed Osama bin Laden, and cut the deficit by almost half. Guess how much support and credibility it has gotten him among conservatives? That's right: none.
Category: Politics, Science | 1 Comment

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


For decades, the default ideology of Official Washington's foreign policy has been "tough-guy-ism," wielding sticks and mocking those who offer carrots, a pattern that could start a disastrous war with Iran, say Tom H. Hastings and Erin E. Niemela.
Tough talk by the U.S. and Iran — sometimes about nukes — has taken many turns over the past three decades, but there has been some relaxing of the tensions recently.
Iran signed a good-faith agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to allow inspectors broad access to its nuclear facilities. Signaling change, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani halted expansion of Iran's uranium enrichment capacity since his election three months ago, according to U.N. inspection reports.
Yet, what has always been available are conflict management methods unexamined by our decision-makers. In developing potential options for adversarial nations, the U.S. government has the Joint Chiefs and security studies hawks on speed dial. Thus, the U.S. stumbles into war after war, informed of the full range of options from A to B. Attack or do nothing. Demonstrate a resolve to kill or show cowardice. It's a wonder we haven't nuked Canada.
Sometimes as we saw in the 1990s with killer sanctions on Iraq certain sanctions are hardest on the most vulnerable, innocent children and other civilians. To a large measure, this is the case vis-Ã -vis Iran. Peace scholars have been pushing for alternative options with Iran, backed by hard data and decades of conflict management experience, since the inception of the conflict. These alternatives have remained largely unnoticed amid the cyclical escalation/de-escalation of war drumming from both sides of the aisle.
As long as Iranian people and their government fear preëmptive military attack by the U.S. there will be strong motivation for development of nuclear weapons, and it will be easier for Iranian leaders to justify sacrifices, including resolve to endure crippling sanctions.
Even Israeli moderates remain belligerent toward Iran, reserving and openly referencing preëmptive military attack as an option. This keeps Iranian moderates on the defensive, emboldens hardliners, and continually prompts the average Iranian to hate Israel and its sponsor, the U.S. Stopping U.S military aid to Israel brings the region many steps closer to peace, helps take the target off the U.S., and prompts Israel to honestly negotiate its relationships constructively.
Now that declassified documents and an acknowledgment by President Barack Obama have formally recognized the CIA's role in the 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, a formal apology should be made for this outrageous transgression. A simple apology without qualification, equivocation, justification or even explanation is best.
Make the demand that Iran cease its nuclear ambitions linked to an offer to dismantle (for example) 200 U.S. nuclear weapons, with each party subject to IAEA inspections. Treat Iran like a real country, not a minor player of which we can make demands we won't ourselves honor.
The two countries should each invite the other to open an embassy with the guarantee of the safety of the personnel that is backed by enormous collateral. The 2011 Obama initiative to maintain an online embassy is a good gesture and not enough; it is time for reciprocity and advancements.
Iranian domestic legitimacy rests partially on the option of developing nuclear capabilities. Iran's nuclear policy acts as a rallying point for internal cohesion. Reframe Iran-U.S. relations to one of peaceful scientific and health research collaboration, taking care to emphasize Iranian past and present contributions and collaborations with the U.S.
Give President Rouhani a fresh rallying point, highlighting Persian history and collective identity in its peaceful pursuits of science, engineering, technology, medicine and mathematics, and reduce reliance on Iranian nuclear policy for domestic legitimacy. Continuing negotiations would include these peaceful collaborations as additional bargaining points.
Offer to provide third country banks a waiver against sanctions for facilitating transactions involved in medicines and medical supplies, and/or designate certain U.S. and Iranian financial institutions as open channels for humanitarian transactions. In exchange, Iran must allow consistent international monitoring of its medical enrichment facilities.
Most of these action items would be nonstarters, right? President Obama would never initiate any of them because, after all, the minority of Congress would howl and call him a treasonous coward. Congressional hawks would light up, hair on fire, bullhorns set on sonic warp kill. Peace-loving people would fear the dripping scorn.
If we continue to see the pusillanimity more afraid of knee-jerks in Congress than of allowing Iran to either get nukes or get attacked, we will watch as helpless as Junebugs on our backs while we drift into an ever-uglier world with more nuclear weapons in more hands, or into a stupendously reckless war of grand bloodbath proportions with Iran, war that is completely avoidable.
You do not need to conduct a multivariate regression analysis to know that successful negotiation requires both carrots and sticks. Hardliners are stuck on sticks, both violent and economic, and even low and no-cost carrots drive them "round the bend." Fine. Let them go. Constructive conflict management is the new realpolitik.
Tom H. Hastings is PeaceVoice Director and teaches in the Conflict Resolution program at Portland State University.
Erin E. Niemela is PeaceVoice Research Director and a Master's Candidate of the Conflict Resolution program at Portland State University.
US foreign policy has always been dominated by lobbyists both good and bad. If a result of any compromise is that Iran gets to lobby like other nations and interest groups it would be a great improvement toward more balanced US foreign policy.
Sanctions against Iran should be relaxed only after the machinery and materials necessary to develop a nuclear weapon are destroyed or moved out of the country. In addition, this must be strictly monitored. However, given the sacrifices Iran was willing to make for its nuclear program during the past three decades, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to envision Iran surrendering its nuclear ambitions.
The authors make some excellent points. I especially like the one about "… the full range of options from A to B. Attack or do nothing. Demonstrate a resolve to kill or show cowardice. " ) I was recently reminded of this kind of thinking when one of the current JFK retrospectives (as the 50th anniversary of his assassination approaches) on PBS discussed the 'Cuban Missile Crisis', and it was scary how war-crazy a lot of the military advisors of Kennedy were – – – if he had listened to them it would have almost certainly quickly escalated into "a full nuclear exchange with an estimated 175 million dead" within hours of launch. Luckily Kennedy (like Eisenhower) had been in the military during wartime and had a healthy skepticism about their political/diplomatic abilities and was able to let the situation calm down (though JFK was somewhat responsible for creating the situation with his bellicose Cold-War talk during the 1960 election and afterwards) and negotiate himself/the US out of a very dicey situation.
But back to the authors' point about more than two options – – – there's a whole continuum of choices and degrees-of-response between doing-nothing vs all-out-war. Military people are essentially experts (or, arguably the closest thing we have to 'experts') in war-making. If we need to go to war, then we should definitely consult them. But the political world is a vastly larger place with numerous other responses. When you're water-main breaks, you call a plumber, but you don't call him when you're son or daughter is having academic problems in school — they're two different problems in separate categories that require two different responses, which is analogous to this situation.


text:
Barão de Cocais é um município brasileiro no estado de Minas Gerais, Região Sudeste do país. Sua população estimada em 2018 era de  habitantes.

História

No início do século XVIII, alguns bandeirantes portugueses e brasileiros procedentes do Rio, São Paulo e Bahia, deslocaram-se do povoado de Socorro, onde se achavam estabelecidos, e desceram o rio por dez quilômetros e no lugar a que deram o nome de "MACACOS" construíram suas cabanas e uma pobre capela.Conhecida nacionalmente como Portal do Caraça, foi fundada no início do século XVIII, por bandeirantes portugueses e paulistas que descobriram o lugar depois de descer o rio São João, a partir do povoado Socorro. O primeiro nome de São João do Presídio do Morro Grande foi porque o arraial nasceu ao sopé de um extenso morro e por isso ficou conhecido como Morro Grande.

O historiador Waldemar de Almeida Barbosa, afirma que os bandeirantes decidiram se fixar no lugar porque encontraram Boa Pinta, ou seja, descobriram novas minas de ouro. A notícia do metal amarelo abundante atraiu novos elementos, casas foram edificadas ao longo das voltas do rio, surgindo assim o bairro dos macacos, núcleo principal de Morro Grande.

Em 1764, teve início a construção da atual Igreja Matriz São João Batista do Morro Grande, primeiro projeto arquitetônico de Aleijadinho, que esculpiu a imagem de São João Batista na porta de entrada e projetou o conjunto da tarja do arco-cruzeiro no interior da igreja. Foram gastos 21 anos para a conclusão da Matriz, que foi inaugurada em 1785.

O alvará régio de 1752 e a Lei nº 2 de 14 de setembro de 1891, criou o distrito com a denominação de São João do Morro Grande. Com a implantação da Usina Morro Grande o lugar toma impulso.

Em 1938, o nome do distrito foi reduzido para Morro Grande. Através do decreto lei estadual nº 1058 de 31 de dezembro de 1943, é emancipado o distrito de Morro Grande, que se separa de Santa Bárbara, passando a chamar-se Barão de Cocais, em homenagem ao Barão José Feliciano Pinto Coelho da Cunha, que nasceu e viveu na antiga Vila Colonial de Cocais, atual distrito de Barão de Cocais.
.

Nesta cidade, localiza-se uma barragem de rejeitos da Vale: mina de Gongo Soco. Em março de 2019, a empresa colocou esta barragem em alerta máximo de rompimento, e os moradores que não conseguiriam escapar por meios próprios já haviam sido removidos em fevereiro. Acredita-se que ela pudesse romper-se em maio.

Geografia
De acordo com a divisão regional vigente desde 2017, instituída pelo IBGE, o município pertence às Regiões Geográficas Intermediária de Belo Horizonte e Imediata de Santa Bárbara-Ouro Preto. Até então, com a vigência das divisões em microrregiões e mesorregiões, o município fazia parte da microrregião de Itabira, que por sua vez estava incluída na mesorregião Metropolitana de Belo Horizonte.

Turismo
Barão de Cocais é uma cidade histórica, com muitos acessos turísticos (cachoeiras, igrejas). Localizada próximo ao Caraça (antigo colégio de padres erguido na Serra do Caraça), ponto turístico de exuberante beleza natural. Festas tradicionais: Carnaval de rua, Festa dos Pés de Pomba e festa de São João (padroeiro da cidade).

Cachoeira de Cocais

Está localizada na Serra da Conceição, a 4,5 km da Vila de Cocais. São várias quedas d'água, sendo uma delas em uma montanha de pedra de mais de trinta metros que proporcionam um espetáculo magnífico, além de ser um excelente local para os adeptos de esportes radicais, como: rapel, mountain bike, canyoning, trekking.

Cachoeira do Cume Cambota
A Cachoeira da Cambota localiza- se no córrego São Miguel, onde formam vários saltos ao longo do seu curso, a água é límpida com temperatura girando em torno de 20 °C. Logo após o salto formam-se duchas naturais e piscinas, onde é possível tomar banhos, a região ainda é rica em orquídeas, canelas-de-ema e samambaias.

A Serra da Cambota faz parte da matriz de água de Barão de Cocais, faz parte em volume da 2ª e mais importante bacia. Está inserida em um ambiente chamado Ecótono, que é uma área de transição entre 2 biomas, muito importante no clima da cidade. Possui uma fauna exuberante. Faz parte do complexo da Serra do Espinhaço.

É um ambiente propicio ao turismo, porém muito sensível. Seu subsolo é rico em componentes minerais, classificando como uma área estratégica para o município.

Serra da Cambota (Campos do Garimpo)
O maciço do Espinhaço, recentemente tombado pela Unesco como reserva da Biosfera, tem em sua formação geológica os dobramentos modernos constituídos predominantemente de rochas como gnaisse e granito.

Região de rara beleza, proporciona aos adeptos do ecoturismo locais adequados para prática de caminhada, ciclismo de montanha e escalada. Com uma vegetação em que predominam os campos rupestres e as centenárias Canelas de Ema, dão ao local uma leitura peculiar com numerosas espécies de flores, que formam um singelo mosaico de cores e formas.

Conhecida como Serra do Garimpo, a localidade é uma região interfluvial das bacias do Rio Piracicaba em sua porção leste e da bacia do Rio das Velhas do seu lado Oeste.

Ruínas do Gongo Soco

Gongo Soco é um testemunho de um dos ciclos mais marcantes na economia nacional, o ciclo do ouro. O sítio tem sua história iniciada em 1745, quando o cavouqueiro Bitencourt encontrou ouro nos cursos d'água que cortam a região. No final do século passado, foi adquirido por João Batista Ferreira e em 1825, a mina foi comprada por ingleses da Cornualha, que operaram entre 1826 a 1856, criando ali um florescente povoado britânico tropical, com hospital, capela e cemitério particular. Ficou paralisada durante muito tempo e em 1986, foi adquirida pela Mineração Socoimex que mantém até hoje resguardado o acervo ambiental e histórico da região.

Cemitério dos Ingleses
Trata-se do local onde estão sepultados os trabalhadores da primeira empresa britânica no Brasil Imperial (Brazilian Gold Mining), que o comprou do Barão de Catas Altas (João Batista Ferreira de Souza Coutinho), por 79 mil libras esterlinas. Nesse cemitério, situado no alto de uma colina e delimitado por um muro de pedras, encontram-se atualmente 10 lápides, algumas com inscrições em inglês, ornamentadas com desenhos apurados no granito e na pedra sabão. Sabe-se que os ingleses eram sepultados de cócoras, tradição da Cornualha.

Santuário de São João Batista

Primeiro projeto arquitetônico de Aleijadinho. Construção iniciada em 1764 e concluída em 1785. É considerada projeto de Aleijadinho, pelo desenho do frontispício, pelo arco cruzeiro, pela ousadia de dispor as torres diagonalmente em relação ao corpo de igreja. Aleijadinho esculpiu ainda a imagem de São João Batista em pedra sabão e projetou a tarja do arco cruzeiro no interior da Matriz. A Matriz possui altares folheados a ouro e a pintura do teto é atribuída ao mestre Ataíde.

Sítio Arqueológico da Pedra Pintada

O Sítio Arqueológico da Pedra Pintada é o programa ideal para quem busca história e conhecimento. Suas pinturas rupestres, datadas de aproximadamente seis mil anos, formam três grandes painéis compostos por cenas de caçadores perseguindo suas presas e pelos diversos rituais realizados no local.

O Sítio está localizado na Serra da Conceição, numa altitude de 1250 metros acima do mar. Sua análise foi feita em 1843 pelo paleontólogo dinamarquês Peter Lund. Nele, você viaja no tempo, conhecendo desenhos semelhantes aos das grutas de Altamira, na Espanha, e Lescaux, na França.

No sítio, estão registrados quatro estilos de grafismos feitos com pigmentos minerais, que podem explicar a cronologia da pintura do paredão.

Acredita-se, a partir de estudo desenvolvido por historiadores da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, com o apoio do CNPq, que o local não serviu de moradia, por possuir registros possivelmente ritualísticos ou estratégicos.

A arte rupestre está registrada em rochas e grutas em todo o Brasil. São mais de 780 sítios arqueológicos, onde as pinturas rupestres deixaram o rastro dos primeiros "pintores" brasileiros de que se tem notícia. Nelas, através de desenhos, estão retratadas histórias de sobrevivência, crença e experiências de vida, um momento em que se descobre um meio de linguagem e comunicação através das pinturas.

Ver também
 Arquidiocese de Mariana
 Lista de municípios de Minas Gerais
 Lista de municípios do Brasil

Ligações externas

 Prefeitura de Barão de Cocais
 Câmara de Barão de Cocais
 Barão de Cocais no IBGE Cidades

Fundações em Minas Gerais em 1943

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Lis Løwert (7 de diciembre de 1919 - 26 de noviembre de 2009) fue una actriz de nacionalidad danesa.

Biografía

Carrera
Nacida en Copenhague, Dinamarca, con nueve años de edad encarnó a una elfa en una representación al aire libre en el Parque Dyrehaven. Posteriormente, y de manera ocasional, fue bailarina en el Pantomimeteatret de los Jardines Tivoli. Entre 1937 y 1940 actuó en el Det Ny Teater, y entre 1942 y 1944 se formó en la escuela del Teatro Real de Copenhague. A partir de 1944 y hasta 1971 trabajó para el Folketeatret. Durante doce años también estuvo a cargo del teatro, donde conoció a su esposo, Bjørn Watt-Boolsen.

Tras hacer algunas actuaciones cinematográficas menores a partir de finales de los años 1930, obtuvo varios papeles de relevancia a finales de la siguiente década. En 1950 actuó en una cinta bélica británica The Wooden Horse. A partir de entonces actuó casi exclusivamente en películas de Erik Balling. Sin embargo, se hizo sobre todo conocida por sus actuaciones televisivas en las series Oh, diese Mieter, con el papel de Sra. Clausen, y Matador, como Violet Winter.

Vida personal
La hermana mayor de Lis Løwerts fue la actriz y directora teatral  Karen Marie Løwert. Se casó por vez primera en 1939 con el actor Palle Reenberg, permaneciendo juntos hasta 1942. La pareja tuvo un hijo. Se casó por segunda vez el 20 de julio de 1947, esta vez con el actor Bjørn Watt-Boolsen, que había sido compañero suyo en la escuela teatral. Permanecieron juntos más de cincuenta años, hasta la muerte de él el 28 de diciembre de 1998.

Lis Løwert falleció en el año 2009 en Copenhague.

Filmografía

Referencias

Enlaces externos

 Lis Løwert en Dansk Film Database (danés)
 Lis Løwert en Det Danske Filminstitut (danés)

Nacidos en Copenhague
Fallecidos en Copenhague
Actores de teatro de Dinamarca
Actores de cine de Dinamarca
Actores de televisión de Dinamarca


The plastic glasses for offices are imposed as daily use in offices and business centers for different reasons, among which include its versatility that exceeds products such as glass, as breakages and accidents are avoided, resulting in productivity of the companies.
Within the range of glasses for plastic offices there are a number of products that have unrivaled qualities from many points of view such as scratch resistance which would make reuse feasible.
The range of plastic products for offices covers a wide range ranging from plates, cutlery and trays in a wide range of shapes and finishes, which gives them great elegance in cases of receptions or work lunches.
Another of the unmistakable properties that plastic products have for offices and workplaces is their resistance to fracture, which avoids uncomfortable situations of breaks in receptions and work centers.
It should be noted that these products are made with recyclable materials, so they will become reusable for other products and thus avoid accumulation of garbage, which impact on the environment would be absolutely negative.
It is a guarantee of hygiene and good presentation for any company that carries out the promotion of its brand, using glasses of recyclable plastic in their offices.