Switching caminos - still get a Compostela?

[AngelCaido]

Hello, I’m walking the Camino del Norte at the moment (started in San Sebastián). I want to leave the route at Arzua and take a taxi to join friends finishing the portugues route so we can all walk into santiago together. I will end up walking the same distance (joining them at Caldas do Reis). Does anyone know if I will still get my Compostela under these circumstances? Or should I push on beyond Arzua before I go to meet them? I would like to get a Compostela this holy year and am very confused by the rules - so any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Bradypus]

It would be a very unusual request and I think you may be refused a Compostela. The current rules are that you must walk at least the final 100km on a recognised Camino route. The English language version of the pilgrim office website also states "You can do the Way in stages, provided they are in chronological and geographical order." What you are suggesting does not seem to fit that requirement.

 

[Kathar1na]

The English language version of the pilgrim office website also states "You can do the Way in stages, provided they are in chronological and geographical order."

The Spanish version has additional information that makes it even clearer that @AngelCaido does not qualify for a Compostela when he takes a taxi to switch from the Camino Frances in Arzua to Caldas de Reis on the Portugues. The distance between Caldas de Reis and Santiago is merely some 40 km, the same as the distance between Arzua and Santiago.

Cuando se emprende la peregrinación, se elige un camino oficial y se peregrina por la misma ruta elegida, sin alternar ni mezclar las rutas de peregrinación.​

​

Meaning that on the last 100 km to Santiago you must stay on the same Camino. You cannot mix and match Caminos on the last 100 km if you want to qualify for a Compostela. You could perhaps win the argument in front of the desks of the Pilgrims Office (and good luck with that!) if you walked from Arzua to Caldas de Reis but that is some additional 70 km. The Compostela is a recognition for a pilgrimage to Santiago that is walked in a 'normal' way towards Santiago and not in circles or artificial pirouettes.

BTW, @AngelCaido, it is nice to have a Compostela as a memento for a pilgrimage during a Holy Year but there is no connection whatsoever between Compostelas and Holy Years. Just to clarify in case there is some confusion about those rules, too . Walk your two days from Arzua, get your Compostela, and join your friends for an additional two days from Caldas de Reis - for the win, as they say . Buen Camino!

 

[t2andreo]

The above replies are spot on. You can switch all over the place, from one Camino route to another, EXCEPT that the final 100km ending in Santiago (Plaza Obradoiro) must be on ONE approved route.

This rule is clear. I have never heard of an exception. But, I allow that it could be possible.

Hope this settles the matter - sorry it's not the answer you are looking for.

Tom

 

[Albertagirl]

Having recently received a Compostela after ending the Primitivo route in Melide and walking on the short distance to Santiago on the Frances, I can see how this regulation might be confusing to some pilgrims.

 

[dbier]

The Primitivo (as far as I am aware) is defined as traveling to Santiago from at least Lugo *through Melide*, and then joining the Frances. So that's not really "switching routes" the way the OP was considering.

 

[Flog]

Having recently received a Compostela after ending the Primitivo route in Melide and walking on the short distance to Santiago on the Frances, I can see how this regulation might be confusing to some pilgrims.

The Primitivo (as far as I am aware) is defined as traveling to Santiago from at least Lugo *through Melide*, and then joining the Frances. So that's not really "switching routes" the way the OP was considering.

Not that it changes this argument, but it has been pointed out elsewhere:
The Primitivo (The original Way) doesn't join the Frances in Melide. Rather, the Frances joins the Primitivo.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Not that it changes this argument, but it has been pointed out elsewhere:
The Primitivo (The original Way) doesn't join the Frances in Melide. Rather, the Frances joins the Primitivo.

hmf, the original way was the network of Roman roads, as adapted during the early Middle Ages, and the Primitivo is somewhat misnomered.

The principle one was IIRC the Aquitana, and it passed through Pamplona, León, and Astorga. That many of the earliest pilgrims were pushed north of that route by an Islamic presence is certain, but that was still a detour from the normal way.

 

[dbier]

:::chuckle::: Not that I care to die on this hill, but do I take the above to mean that Alfonso II did not travel from Oviedo to Santiago? Or simply that someone documented their pilgrimage for whom or whatever to what is now NW Spain earlier than Alfonso?

 

[dbier]

And hopefully the OP has had their question clearly answered.

 

[C clearly]

do I take the above to mean that Alfonso II did not travel from Oviedo to Santiago? Or simply that someone documented their pilgrimage for whom or whatever to what is now NW Spain earlier than Alfonso?

What does Alfonso have to do with anything?

 

[dbier]

Ah, I have the wrong king's name, I see. My apologies

 

[C clearly]

Ah, I have the wrong king's name, I see. My apologies

I still don't see how any king is involved in this discussion.

 

[trecile]

What does Alfonso have to do with anything?

I still don't see how any king is involved in this discussion.

Alfonso II is involved because of Flog's argument that the Francés joins the Primitivo, not the other way around, since the Primitivo was the original route to Santiago, first walked from Oviedo by Alfonso II.

Not that it changes this argument, but it has been pointed out elsewhere:
The Primitivo (The original Way) doesn't join the Frances in Melide. Rather, the Frances joins the Primitivo.

 

[dick bird]

T

hmf, the original way was the network of Roman roads, as adapted during the early Middle Ages, and the Primitivo is somewhat misnomered.

The principle one was IIRC the Aquitana, and it passed through Pamplona, León, and Astorga. That many of the earliest pilgrims were pushed north of that route by an Islamic presence is certain, but that was still a detour from the normal way.

The first pilgrimage to Santiago is generally reckoned to be one undertaken by Alfonso II from Oviedo to Santiago sometime around 840-850. I don’t think he walked though.

 

[Flog]

The first pilgrimage to Santiago is generally reckoned to be one undertaken by Alfonso II from Oviedo to Santiago sometime around 840-850. I don’t think he walked though.

Indeed, it's rumoured he did it on horseback but took a stagecoach from Lugo to Melide. A feed of pulpo invigorated him enough to resume his camino on horseback, yet on arrival at the pilgrim's office he was refused a compostela. It was also noted that hadn't collected enough stamps on the way. Infuriated, he had the staff member beheaded on the spot.

Thankfully nowadays, staff and volunteers no longer need to fear the wrath of kings.. though they do still suffer the occasional tirade of abuse..

 

[David Tallan]

:::chuckle::: Not that I care to die on this hill, but do I take the above to mean that Alfonso II did not travel from Oviedo to Santiago? Or simply that someone documented their pilgrimage for whom or whatever to what is now NW Spain earlier than Alfonso?

I'm not sure that there is any documented evidence of what route Alfonso took between Oviedo and Santiago and how closely or distantly it corresponds to what is now identified as the "Camino Primitivo". In the same vein, I'm not sure how many others followed the route that Alfonso took, making it an established ongoing pilgrimage route rather than just the path that one man followed. Most of the scholars that I've read seem to suggest that, for the most part, pilgrims were following the Roman roads on their pilgrimages in Spain, as JabbaPapa references. That one man may have taken a different route doesn't change the roads that most people (and pilgrims) were taking, and to acknowledge the commonly walked routes doesn't necessarily mean that one dismisses a particular trip by an individual person (okay, perhaps with retinue).

 

[Tincatinker]

'Sfun innit. A date C840-850 just might suggest the Primo (first) pilgrimage to Santiago. There wouldn't have been many scuttling Santiago-wards prior to that. In those days it took a bit more authority than Tripeadvertiser to recommend a pilgrimage destination and slightly longer than a nano-second for that Influencer (Papal) recommendation to break among the thirsty (for salvation) throngs.

Of course them ancient Pilgs used the Roman road network, there weren't any others to use. And dear old Alph II: well he'd have had sufficient local knowledge and an even more knowledgeable retinue to get him, his Palanquin or trusty nag safely down the safest most direct route from his Capital to Santiago. Claim his Compostela and head home. After-all, who needs Gronze or Brierley when its your Kingdom.

At Melide they might well have heard the thunder of the sinful hordes clattering down from mittel Europa but the roar will have been behind them....

 

[Camino Chrissy]

@Tincatinker, I am not a Camino history buff at all, but I sure like your writing style; often a combination of some historical facts you've studied, mixed in with a dash of dry humor and clever wit.

 

[Tincatinker]

Thanks @Camino Chrissy. Students of my history will know I'll assert my pagan claims to the route to Fisterra but the ancient, at least aged, Christian Reconquista claim to the road to Santiago is important as the foundation of the modern Camino. I'll risk the assertion that it (the thousand ways) remains an Holy Road and not just a leisure destination.