Why no Moroccan reconquista?

Qhapaq Inka

Obviously, Spain had its hands full in the Americas in the early 16th century, but why didn't they decide to also continue the Reconquista into Morocco, especially once they started getting flooded with New World gold and silver? Just a case where they recognized that they'd be overextended?

Edit: Inspired by the trope that if the Americas hadn't been discovered in 1492, Spain would have poured all its resources into a North African invasion.
 

Youngmarshall

The Iberians invaded Morocco a lot. They took loads of port cities from them. But the only attempts to advance into the interior were a dismal failiure. It's tough land to conquer.
 

Qhapaq Inka

I remember reading about the Portuguese siege of Ceuta way back in the early 15th century. Did Spain and Portugal ever do any joint military expeditions against Morocco?
 

Youngmarshall

Qhapaq Inka said:
I remember reading about the Portuguese siege of Ceuta way back in the early 15th century. Did Spain and Portugal ever do any joint military expeditions against Morocco?
Click to expand...

No, the first portuguese conquest of Morocco was Cueta in 1415 when Granada still existed in Spain so Spain wasn't interested in North Africa yet.

In the 1479 treaty that ended the war of castillian succession, Spain agreed that portugal would have the rights to invade Morocco and Spain wouldn't interfere or try and take Morrocan land themselves. In 1494, portugal agreed to make an exception for Melilla which Spain took in 1497.

Meanwhile Portugal kept taking more and more Morrocan ports, Tangiers, Agadir, etc, etc until in 1578 they attempted a full on crusade into the interior, which led to their entire army being wiped out and their young king dying.

That was pretty much it for Portugal in Morrocco. Two years later, the King of Spain took over as King of Portugal and so further attacks on Morocco in the 1600s were primarily spanish and when Portugal broke away from the Iberian union in 1640 the Morrocan towns were the only previously portuguese territories to remain with Spain rather than go with the newly independent Portugal.
 
Last edited:

Youngmarshall

Qhapaq Inka said:
Awesome, thanks for this information!
Click to expand...

So if you want a Spanish Morocco prior to 1640, you need either for the 1479 treaty with Portugal to not include a clause forbidding spanish involvement in Morocco or for the Portuguese invasions to go much more successful and yet have King Sebastian still die so that the iberian union still happens but it brings with it a Portuguese Morocco.

You'd also need Spain to be able to hold it against the inevitable Ottoman attacks. Which they might be able to do, they had better luck holding onto North African ports under ottoman siege than you might imagine. They held Oran in Algeria up until they withdrew peacefully in 1790.
 

frustrated progressive

Wit the the Spanish and Portuguese, Europe was number one priority, the Americas and Asia basically tied for number two, and the parts of Africa where they couldn't readily acquire slaves were number four. Since both could reasonably claim that they were doing their duty to preserve and expand the faith by fighting against the Ottomans and/or Christianizing the New World, Morocco's benefits weren't nearly as great as those of expansion elsewhere.
 

Tanc49

Morocco was actually very important oo the Portuguese Empire and a lot of nobles did their classes fighting there, at least until the mid-1500's.
The thing is, at some point Morocco became way less useful. It used to be rich because of the caravans coming from the south, ivory, gold and slaves.

However, the Iberians first took the major ports (Ceuta in 1415, generally marking the start of the Age of Exploration and Tanger later) but they also short circuited iit completely by going to the source in Guinea.
Add to that the caravans had already started to reroute to Egypt at the end of the 14th century anyway and Morocco becomes less important.

On top of that, the Portuguese were doing their parts against the Enemy already by fighting Muslims merchants and having their Proto-world war in 1536-1541 with the Ottomans
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

Partly, because it wouldn't have been a 'RE'conquista.

Iberia was a unit from Roman times on, and different from Africa.

The Iberians (all the petty kingdoms that existed originally) concentrated on clearing Iberia first.

While invading North Africa could, in theory, be spun as a reconquista (it had been Christian territory for a bit), it's not a reconquista for Spain, but for Rome or for Christendom. In other words, it's more of a Crusade overseas than a Reconquista.

Also, as others have pointed out, the focus on Italy and the HRE, and the other focus on the Americas really did dilute the political (military and financial) effort needed for any possible conquest of the Maghreb.

If they HAD spun the attack as a 'Reconquista', they'd also be kind of committed to taking back the REST of North Africa, too. Which would be ... a quagmire.
 

Youngmarshall

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
Partly, because it wouldn't have been a 'RE'conquista.

Iberia was a unit from Roman times on, and different from Africa.

The Iberians (all the petty kingdoms that existed originally) concentrated on clearing Iberia first.

While invading North Africa could, in theory, be spun as a reconquista (it had been Christian territory for a bit), it's not a reconquista for Spain, but for Rome or for Christendom. In other words, it's more of a Crusade overseas than a Reconquista.

Also, as others have pointed out, the focus on Italy and the HRE, and the other focus on the Americas really did dilute the political (military and financial) effort needed for any possible conquest of the Maghreb.

If they HAD spun the attack as a 'Reconquista', they'd also be kind of committed to taking back the REST of North Africa, too. Which would be ... a quagmire.
Click to expand...

The old visigothic kingdom did include Ceuta, which I believe is something often made much of in the modern discussions.

But I think you're simplifying things a little. The Spanish did invade North Africa: Oran, Tunis, Tripoli Melilla etc all became Spanish in the 1500s. The Portuguese did it even earlier when Granada still existed. Not a Reconquista as such but certainly fueled in part by the crusading spirit of the Reconquista era.
 

thekingsguard

Combo of their attention on the Americas and getting roped into all the Haspburg drama of the 15th and 16th century. Spain spent so much blood and treasure on behalf of their Austrian cousins, and it cost them dearly.
 

Fabius Maximus

Youngmarshall said:
The old visigothic kingdom did include Ceuta, which I believe is something often made much of in the modern discussions.

But I think you're simplifying things a little. The Spanish did invade North Africa: Oran, Tunis, Tripoli Melilla etc all became Spanish in the 1500s. The Portuguese did it even earlier when Granada still existed. Not a Reconquista as such but certainly fueled in part by the crusading spirit of the Reconquista era.
Click to expand...

Even before that, Mauretania Tingitana was administered as part of the Roman diocese of Spain.
 

Carl Schwamberger

Maybe if the Berbers are not so throughly converted in previous centuries. While the Berbers would never be good Spainards a Christian Berber population could be allies of a Portuguse or Spainish extention into this region.
 

Anarch King of Dipsodes

Qhapaq Inka said:
Obviously, Spain had its hands full in the Americas in the early 16th century, but why didn't they decide to also continue the Reconquista into Morocco, especially once they started getting flooded with New World gold and silver? Just a case where they recognized that they'd be overextended?

Edit: Inspired by the trope that if the Americas hadn't been discovered in 1492, Spain would have poured all its resources into a North African invasion.
Click to expand...

First, unlike, say, Granada, Morocco was across ocean from Spain, and thus much more difficult to invade.

Second, unlike Algarve, Andalucia, Granada, and so on, Morocco was completely Moslem - the Almohads had wiped out Christianity there. So there was no local support for Christian invaders.

Third, unlike America, Morocco's peoples were armed comparably to Europeans, and not vulnerable to disease.

Fourth, unlike America, Morocco didn't have enormous loot.

As for Portugal - it had much less resources than Spain. Portugal, as noted in this thread, did try to conquer Morocco, and lost badly trying. After that, Portugal focused on setting posts around Africa and in the Indies and reaping lush profits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top