Kingdoms and councils of medieval Castile

I was hoping someone could help me out with understanding the regional governance of Castile in the middle ages. According to Wikipedia, the country was divided into sub-kingdoms of Leon, Castile, Toledo, Jaen, Seville etc. However, elsewhere I keep coming across references to fueros and municipalities of Extremadura (part of the Leonese kingdom) and Andalusia (which crossed three kingdoms*). I'm most interested in the 1200-1400 period.

In addition to understanding how the governance system worked, any insight into the strengths of regional identity would be interesting. I'm curious about which nobilities/local administrators would be most likely to revolt to set up their own state if the King's position got weakened.

*Granada only became considered part of Andalusia in the 18th century.
 
n

1) The King position. To have his legitimacy supported, (critically in before the 1300's) he had to fight the Muslims and make advance the Reconquista.

2)As in every feudal kingdom, the regional identity was strong : indeeed, the local instutions use their own culture references, their own dialect or language and even their own script.

Add to that that, you had the local fidelities, alliance between nobles (more many in Spain than in other western region, around 10% for Spain and 2% for France by exemple)

3) Andalucia is usually the name given to the 3 southern kingdoms plus the kingdom of Grenade after the conquest.

4)One of the particularities of iberic feudalism is the extreme respect of local particularities (insitutions, juridic, etc). You find an equivalent thing in the Crown of Aragon with 3 "states" only in the continnt : Aragon, València, Catalonia.

That said, the kingdoms of southern Castille didn't had a real autonomy.
And the local governors, named by the king, had the real power.
The king could give to the cities of these kingdoms, and NOT to the kingdom, the representation in the Castillan Cortès.

They were necessary, because usually taken on Muslims, the institutional power had to be re-build (and they could have built it, respecting the treaties passed with the ex-taifas), and having a quick capacity of reaction in case of revolt.

You can see these kingdoms as march progressivly integrated.

4) As said elsewhere, a feudal noble can't just say "Fuck the king, I'm independent" because once you do that, all your vassals would think "fuck this one, I'm independent".

You can revolt this openly against royal authority only when you can state your suzerain fall to fulfill his duties towards you.

Furthermore, Spain had particularities : more nobles and even an important local nobles didn't had the suzerainty on all of these that were often under the direct vassalage of the king (instead of the institutional matriochka you had in France)

5) A fuero is a chart guaranting the feudal rights as well these rights.
The king octroyed to cities and nobles of Extramadura rights, as in all the western world. But you'll notice that the kingdoms' rights themselves aren't that mentioned.
 
Thank you for this. So would people in Extremadura feel a stronger regional identity to Extremadura or to Leon? Would people in Jaen feel a stronger regional identity to Jaen or to Andalusia?

It seems odd to me that the nobility of Andalusia was integrated and felt as one, despite being multiple kingdoms. Meanwhile, despite Leon being one kingdom, there was an emnity between the (northern) Leonese nobility and the Extremaduran nobility.
 
Thank you for this. So would people in Extremadura feel a stronger regional identity to Extremadura or to Leon? Would people in Jaen feel a stronger regional identity to Jaen or to Andalusia?
As in all the Middle-Ages, you didn't have that of a "regional" indentity. It's about local, municipal indentity. The fact the region (and critically the cities) were often settled by people from north of Spain or even southern France didn't helped to the constitution of a regional identity.

It seems odd to me that the nobility of Andalusia was integrated and felt as one, despite being multiple kingdoms. Meanwhile, despite Leon being one kingdom, there was an emnity between the (northern) Leonese nobility and the Extremaduran nobility.

As said, the nobility in Spain was the most important of latin Europe.
You had the consitutions of fidelities that were, for obvious reasons, made following territories critically when it concerned hidalgos (more or less "sons of somebody"), nobles of name but with a precarious situation.

It was less Extramadure against Leon than nobles from north that were somewhat more powerful against nobles of the south, more poor.
 
As in all the Middle-Ages, you didn't have that of a "regional" indentity. It's about local, municipal indentity. The fact the region (and critically the cities) were often settled by people from north of Spain or even southern France didn't helped to the constitution of a regional identity.



As said, the nobility in Spain was the most important of latin Europe.
You had the consitutions of fidelities that were, for obvious reasons, made following territories critically when it concerned hidalgos (more or less "sons of somebody"), nobles of name but with a precarious situation.

It was less Extramadure against Leon than nobles from north that were somewhat more powerful against nobles of the south, more poor.

It is sounds like even more of a mess than I was aware of.
One would wonder how come that this convoluted patchwork could take on Andalus, except than Andalus was, on average, even worse than that in terms of conflituality, shifting allegiances, and so on.
From what I gather, Portugal was somewhat more cohesive, though maybe it was a later thing.
 
It is sounds like even more of a mess than I was aware of.
It was in fact quite stable. It looks as a mess because we use different standards and that we're no longer used to vassalic or feudal ones.

One would wonder how come that this convoluted patchwork could take on Andalus, except than Andalus was, on average, even worse than that in terms of conflituality, shifting allegiances, and so on.
The problem of Al-Andalus is to have kept tribal features : a governor or a noble far from capital felt no obligatio towards the ruler, even symbolic. It was HIS territory, point.

The number of revolts during all the history of Al-Andalus is really huge. No wonder that Christian kingdoms managed to reconquer this while being really disadvanteged regarding number and wealth.

From what I gather, Portugal was somewhat more cohesive, though maybe it was a later thing.

Well, Algraves had less population, and less divided in taifas so the conquest was more simple.
Not being neighbour of France and Mediterranea helped a lot to not get integrated in other's people mess.

Furthermore, you had an impressive number of concelhos, sort of mix between consulates and alleus. Less petty nobility fearing both the fate of commoners and rule of great nobles.

You had as well, at least as much religious orders (hospitalers-like) to organize the territory than Spain.

But Portugal knew the sames troubles linked to the end of Reconquista, plague, climatic changes than in Castile.
 
It was in fact quite stable. It looks as a mess because we use different standards and that we're no longer used to vassalic or feudal ones.


The problem of Al-Andalus is to have kept tribal features : a governor or a noble far from capital felt no obligatio towards the ruler, even symbolic. It was HIS territory, point.

The number of revolts during all the history of Al-Andalus is really huge. No wonder that Christian kingdoms managed to reconquer this while being really disadvanteged regarding number and wealth.



Well, Algraves had less population, and less divided in taifas so the conquest was more simple.
Not being neighbour of France and Mediterranea helped a lot to not get integrated in other's people mess.

Furthermore, you had an impressive number of concelhos, sort of mix between consulates and alleus. Less petty nobility fearing both the fate of commoners and rule of great nobles.

You had as well, at least as much religious orders (hospitalers-like) to organize the territory than Spain.

But Portugal knew the sames troubles linked to the end of Reconquista, plague, climatic changes than in Castile.

Well, I know Andalus better than I know christian counterparts, and yes, she was plagued by chronic political instability or, better said, chronic lack of politically legitimate power. It was sort of a problem for much Islamic countries at the time, with some remarkable exceptions (Fatimids and Hafsids come to mind) and the pattern was actually noted and lamented by some contemporary Muslim historians.
However, I would say that calling these "tribal" features is not completely correct. There was a strong streak of actual tribalism (two in fact, one Berber and one Arab) but dynamics of power rested also of more complicated factors including ethnicity, muncipal rivalries, religious conflicts and what I would call class conflicts for want of a better term.
I gather that Middle Ages Iberia, both Christian and Muslim, was a very complex political landscape where a lot of conflicts and interests intertwined in interesting (Chinese sense) ways. Overall, it is fascinating if you are not living in the middle of it (or if you are getting the right end of the stick anyway).
 
However, I would say that calling these "tribal" features is not completely correct. There was a strong streak of actual tribalism (two in fact, one Berber and one Arab) but dynamics of power rested also of more complicated factors including ethnicity, muncipal rivalries, religious conflicts and what I would call class conflicts for want of a better term.
Ethnicity per se ceased to be a problem in Al-Andalus around the X century.

The degree of "arabity" was indeed a factor of social classment, but it was far more a matter of culture than actual ethnicity (Caliphes ended by having the need of tincture to look like Arabs). The last time ethnicity played a worth of mention role in Al-Andalus was during Almanzor's rule when he gathered in the caliphate forgeigners (berbers and christians).

And it was, if important, a really isolated thing in time.

For the religious conflicts...I admit I don't know what you're making mention of. Of course you had issues about schools, critically with the Almohads rejecting the pre-malekit schools that existed before them but...this was more political than anything else.

The uprising of Christians were really both limited in time and in location.

Of course that tribal issues weren't the only ones, but muncipal rivalries, class struggle existed as well in Christian Spain. But the feudal system managed to keep a real unity, when the tribal (in the sense of families, clans, inherited from Arabic history) issues couldn't do something about it.

Berbers, Arabs and muladis managed to make an ethnic mix (at least prior Almanzor) the when I say tribal, i'm talking about families and their enlarged clientele.

I gather that Middle Ages Iberia, both Christian and Muslim, was a very complex political landscape where a lot of conflicts and interests intertwined in interesting (Chinese sense) ways. Overall, it is fascinating if you are not living in the middle of it (or if you are getting the right end of the stick anyway).

Christian Spain was certainly less plagued by inner troubles than Al-Andalus. It's like comparing XIX century USA and XIX century Mexico. There's not ONE reign of an emir, of a caliphe, of any Islamic ruler that didn't had at least two revolts and at least one region that didn't gave a fuck about him.

Even a big badass like Abd al Rahman III had his lot of revolts to crush (in the blood, if possible)
 
For the religious conflicts...I admit I don't know what you're making mention of. Of course you had issues about schools, critically with the Almohads rejecting the pre-malekit schools that existed before them but...this was more political than anything else.

Of course it was political... I don't believe in purely religious conflicts. :D
But yes, I was referring to that kind of things. Both Almoravids and Almohads, especially the latter, invested quite heavily in religious standing as a legitimizing tool. (Ok, i'm simplifying a lot).
 
Of course it was political... I don't believe in purely religious conflicts. :D
But yes, I was referring to that kind of things. Both Almoravids and Almohads, especially the latter, invested quite heavily in religious standing as a legitimizing tool. (Ok, i'm simplifying a lot).

Well you don't have any "pure" conflict. But religion can plays an important part. I'm not sure it was the case there.

Almoravids adapted themselves really quickly the the schools developed during the caliphate (I don't remember the name, just it was a really formal name for something not organised as a regular religious school).
 
Well you don't have any "pure" conflict. But religion can plays an important part. I'm not sure it was the case there.

Almoravids adapted themselves really quickly the the schools developed during the caliphate (I don't remember the name, just it was a really formal name for something not organised as a regular religious school).

At the beginning the Almohads were quite an ideological movement and theological differences with the Maliki mainstream were quite apparent, so it was the case to some extent at least. But overall, it boiled down mostly to power at least after a while. I gather that the aspect of religious conflict was sort of more emphasised in North Africa but I would not bet on it. I wish I can look at more Arabic sources from that time in the future, I would like to delve into Ibn Tumart's thinking but I had no time to do it so far.
Both the previous school dominant in Andalus and the Almoravids, IIRC, were Malikis tendencies but there were differences there too.
 
The problem of Al-Andalus is to have kept tribal features : a governor or a noble far from capital felt no obligatio towards the ruler, even symbolic. It was HIS territory, point.

The number of revolts during all the history of Al-Andalus is really huge. No wonder that Christian kingdoms managed to reconquer this while being really disadvanteged regarding number and wealth.

How did these differing senses of feudal obligation play out when, as sometimes happened, a Muslim vassal served a Christian lord or vice versa?
 
How did these differing senses of feudal obligation play out when, as sometimes happened, a Muslim vassal served a Christian lord or vice versa?

Depends.

Some muslims lords standed under christian suzerainty by treaty and remained laike that up their conversion or the one of their descendents.

Or, and that's is more true for the taifas that acknowledged the christian suzerainity, they used feudal references when they had interest, or said "we're no forced to do that, as it's a treaty based on OUR traditions and institutions".
Quickly, this sort of "yes-no" annoyed the christian kings that just integrated the taifas more and more, followed by a revolt, then a crush, finally annexation.

And you had finally the paria (tribute) that could be understood as an acknowledgment of vassalage by christian, when it was "only" a tribute for the Muslims.

To resume, things became eventually clear : or you integrated yourself to the feudal system, or you were eventually crushed.
 
Top