Normans in Spain

It is an ideological statement to state that a specific religious group has a claim to territory based on historical ownership, and that dispossessing the inhabitants (descended from those living there forever) is actually a recovery of ancient rights. Reconquista is an ideologically loaded term. It is effectively stating that religions can have legitimate dominion over space independently of who lives there.
All this stuff about claim and ancient rights is stuff you attach to the word as well, they are not part of it.

If you think that the meaning behind "conquering something X group had before" is ideological motivated then I don't think there is anything I can add more, it's pretty clear who's the one that is coming from an ideological position.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
All this stuff about claim and ancient rights is stuff you attach to the word as well, they are not part of it.

If you think that the meaning behind "conquering something X group had before" is ideological motivated then I don't think there is anything I can add more, it's pretty clear who's the one that is coming from an ideological position.

The ideological statement is "group x had this before". Group x didn't have this before, some people who as part of their cultural identity had a similar religion to group x had this before. To a large degree, the people who had had it before were still there, with both genetic and cultural continuity from the pre-Moorish period. These people were then conquered, subjugated and sometimes enslaved, sometimes expelled and sometimes merely subjected to the status of second class citizens, by group X.
 
The ideological statement is "group x had this before". Group x didn't have this before, some people who as part of their cultural identity had a similar religion to group x had this before. To a large degree, the people who had had it before were still there, with both genetic and cultural continuity from the pre-Moorish period. These people were then conquered, subjugated and sometimes enslaved, sometimes expelled and sometimes merely subjected to the status of second class citizens, by group X.
Christians are the X group, they had the land before and they conquered it again. Simple, nothing else matters in this context, given the word mixes only 2 words and 2 meanings. There is no moral statement in that. This is the last thing I will say about the topic anyway.
 
The ideological statement is "group x had this before". Group x didn't have this before, some people who as part of their cultural identity had a similar religion to group x had this before.

Group X in this scenario is the cultural and religious group that was once Visigothic. Visigoths once owned the entirety of the Iberian peninsula and a Visigoth nobleman founded the Kingdom of Asturias following the Muslim conquest, so group x as a whole once owned the entirety of the peninsula.

To a large degree, the people who had had it before were still there, with both genetic and cultural continuity from the pre-Moorish period. These people were then conquered, subjugated and sometimes enslaved, sometimes expelled and sometimes merely subjected to the status of second class citizens, by group X.

Originally not, the Moors were foreigners from North Africa who formed the ruling class. Gradually intermixing happened, of course, but the cultural and religious continuity of the upper class came from the Moors, while the cultural and religious continuity of Asturias and its successors came from the Visigoths.

“Reconquista” is an oversimplification, but it’s not inaccurate from a certain point of view.
 
Group X in this scenario is the cultural and religious group that was once Visigothic. Visigoths once owned the entirety of the Iberian peninsula and a Visigoth nobleman founded the Kingdom of Asturias following the Muslim conquest, so group x as a whole once owned the entirety of the peninsula.



Originally not, the Moors were foreigners from North Africa who formed the ruling class. Gradually intermixing happened, of course, but the cultural and religious continuity of the upper class came from the Moors, while the cultural and religious continuity of Asturias and its successors came from the Visigoths.

“Reconquista” is an oversimplification, but it’s not inaccurate from a certain point of view.
I don't think you construct this as Visigothic-Moor thing either, you had good portions of Visigoths accepting and participating in Muslim rule and some raising to prominent positions, there was a guy(Visigoth, his dynasty continued for a century before dying) that I think was called third king during the very early period, alongside the Umayyads and the Asturias.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
Group X in this scenario is the cultural and religious group that was once Visigothic. Visigoths once owned the entirety of the Iberian peninsula and a Visigoth nobleman founded the Kingdom of Asturias following the Muslim conquest, so group x as a whole once owned the entirety of the peninsula.



Originally not, the Moors were foreigners from North Africa who formed the ruling class. Gradually intermixing happened, of course, but the cultural and religious continuity of the upper class came from the Moors, while the cultural and religious continuity of Asturias and its successors came from the Visigoths.

“Reconquista” is an oversimplification, but it’s not inaccurate from a certain point of view.

As Gloss said, there was a large degree of conversion among Visigothic/Latin nobles. We see a massive number of hybrid names, Goths in genealogies and Muslim people with the surname al-Qudi "the Goth". The northern regions from which Andalusia was conquered were the least Gothic, Asturias and Cantabria had late survival of pre-Roman ethnic groups, and they were extremely different culturally from what we now see as the Andalusian heartland.
 
It is an ideological statement to state that a specific religious group has a claim to territory based on historical ownership, and that dispossessing the inhabitants (descended from those living there forever) is actually a recovery of ancient rights. Reconquista is an ideologically loaded term. It is effectively stating that religions can have legitimate dominion over space independently of who lives there.

I'm not going to say that the Reconquista didn't have a religious ideology as one of it's main drivers, but you also can't possibly frame a process that lasted 8 centuries, with multiple intricacies, as simply as that.

Though it may have not been seen that way back then, more recently it became a defining element of Spanish and Portuguese identity. Despite how christians and muslims coexisted and intertwined to serve their own interests during the period, for the former party, which you cricticize in your comment, the moors were always the foreign invasors that held their land. Granted, none of this "reconquering" happened within a period of time that you consider rightful for a state to claim what it lost, but for the christian kingdoms in the north, they were just a continuation to the visigothics that had fallen centuries back.

So you see, it wasn't only a matter of regaining "christian" land, but what is now perceived as Spanish/Portuguese land. However, considering how religion back then was also a form of nationallity, even more so than loyalty to any given state, you can't really draw the line between religious ideology, which according to today standards should not be the reason for any conflict, and national-ish ideology, which in some cases is acceptable (decolonisation).

I'm not spanish nor portuguese, but I believe you should be a bit more careful with your comments. Though you may not have meant it, to say that the reconquista (again, a very important, if not most important element of spanish/portuguese history and identity) was ideologically, in all aspects, flawed and unjust, is damn close to say that their respective nation had no right to exist.
 
I don't think you construct this as Visigothic-Moor thing either, you had good portions of Visigoths accepting and participating in Muslim rule and some raising to prominent positions, there was a guy(Visigoth, his dynasty continued for a century before dying) that I think was called third king during the very early period, alongside the Umayyads and the Asturias.

As Gloss said, there was a large degree of conversion among Visigothic/Latin nobles. We see a massive number of hybrid names, Goths in genealogies and Muslim people with the surname al-Qudi "the Goth". The northern regions from which Andalusia was conquered were the least Gothic, Asturias and Cantabria had late survival of pre-Roman ethnic groups, and they were extremely different culturally from what we now see as the Andalusian heartland.

Alright, it was wrong to imply that the native inhabitants of the peninsula were not active participants even in the early Caliphate era. I didn’t realize about how culturally distinct the northernmost parts of Iberia were to the south; that’s really interesting.

However, I still argue that a “continuity” exists between Visigothic Iberia and Asturias. Does a continuity exist between Visigothic Iberia and the Caliphate of Córdoba also? Yes. Both were valid successor states and both could “claim” Iberia in full.
 
I'm not spanish nor portuguese, but I believe you should be a bit more careful with your comments. Though you may not have meant it, to say that the reconquista (again, a very important, if not most important element of spanish/portuguese history and identity) was ideologically, in all aspects, flawed and unjust, is damn close to say that their respective nation had no right to exist.
I agree with the bulk of your posts on this thread, but the bold part of this one stands out as odd. Do nations have the right to exist?

I mean, people do, but nations? Only, I would argue, as an extension of self- determination of the people constituting said nation. Even then, this is an incredibly modern viewpoint for examining the formation of states in the 10th and 11th century, as well as their successors. If nations have any rights, they're surely only possessed in a post-Versailles world. Pre-Westphalia, we're just talking about the accumulation of land that all answers to the same top lord.

At the end of the day, nearly every state on the planet has conquest and subjugation woven through its history, often as foundation myth. Acknowledging that doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist today. They exist today because their modern day inhabitants desire it. This is why Cantabria, Mercia and Neustria don't; but other polities do. The lineage of nations is important culturally, historically, perhaps emotionally; but constitutionally? Not convinced.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
I'm not going to say that the Reconquista didn't have a religious ideology as one of it's main drivers, but you also can't possibly frame a process that lasted 8 centuries, with multiple intricacies, as simply as that.

Though it may have not been seen that way back then, more recently it became a defining element of Spanish and Portuguese identity. Despite how christians and muslims coexisted and intertwined to serve their own interests during the period, for the former party, which you cricticize in your comment, the moors were always the foreign invasors that held their land. Granted, none of this "reconquering" happened within a period of time that you consider rightful for a state to claim what it lost, but for the christian kingdoms in the north, they were just a continuation to the visigothics that had fallen centuries back.

So you see, it wasn't only a matter of regaining "christian" land, but what is now perceived as Spanish/Portuguese land. However, considering how religion back then was also a form of nationallity, even more so than loyalty to any given state, you can't really draw the line between religious ideology, which according to today standards should not be the reason for any conflict, and national-ish ideology, which in some cases is acceptable (decolonisation).

I'm not spanish nor portuguese, but I believe you should be a bit more careful with your comments. Though you may not have meant it, to say that the reconquista (again, a very important, if not most important element of spanish/portuguese history and identity) was ideologically, in all aspects, flawed and unjust, is damn close to say that their respective nation had no right to exist.

That is a strange post. The states of Spain and Portugal did not exist at the time of the Moorish conquest of Iberia, them never coming into existence would not have hurt anyone.
 
That is a strange post. The states of Spain and Portugal did not exist at the time of the Moorish conquest of Iberia, them never coming into existence would not have hurt anyone.
well this could hurt all of europé whit out spain and Portugal it might take longer to find america which mean europé would still be over populated and that means no forum no wifi and because it would be cheaper whit human Labour instead of industri which means shit for almost everyone
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
Alright, it was wrong to imply that the native inhabitants of the peninsula were not active participants even in the early Caliphate era. I didn’t realize about how culturally distinct the northernmost parts of Iberia were to the south; that’s really interesting.

However, I still argue that a “continuity” exists between Visigothic Iberia and Asturias. Does a continuity exist between Visigothic Iberia and the Caliphate of Córdoba also? Yes. Both were valid successor states and both could “claim” Iberia in full.

I would suggest that neither of them were successor states, though that term is probably anachronistic. All Visigothic kings had Visigothic names whereas the first King of Asturias was named Pelagius, a Latin name, and only 2 or 3 of the post-conquest kings have Visigothic names. The creation of the medieval highland Christian states and identities was a case of ethnogenesis and state formation. Here is a quote explaining the point from Barbera and Vigil:

los cántabros-astures y vascones que con su independencia [frente al reino visigodo] habían conservado un régimen social antagónico al de los visigodos, donde los hombres libres eran mayoría y las diferencias de clase eran mínimas, tenían poderosos motivos para continuar defendiendo su libertad [contra los nuevos dominadores musulma- nes]... Es decir, la región nunca dominada por los musulmanes y de donde surgiría la “Reconquista” fue la misma que defendió su independencia frente a los visigodos y seguía luchando por ella todavía contra el último rey godo don Rodrigo en el año 711. Por consiguiente, el fenómeno histórico llamado Reconquista no obedeció en sus oríge- nes a motivos puramente políticos y religiosos, puesto que como tal fenómeno existía ya mucho antes de la llegada de los musulmanes... Se ha adjudicado habitualmente a estos montañeses, enemigos tradicionales de los visigodos, el papel de ser sus sucesores políticos frente a los musulmanes; pero el deseo de “reconquistar” unas tierras que evidentemente nunca habían poseído, no se puede aceptar hasta tiempos posteriores en los que se creó realmente una conciencia de continuidad con el reino visigodo

My position is that the term "reconquista", which appears quite late (as far as I can tell not contemporaneously) is an ideologically loaded term designed to give legitimacy to a set of historical events. This is a widely (though not exclusively) held view among Spanish historians, and I'm rather surprised to find it so controversial on here. There is good summary of the question in Spanish here.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
well this could hurt all of europé whit out spain and Portugal it might take longer to find america which mean europé would still be over populated and that means no forum no wifi and because it would be cheaper whit human Labour instead of industri which means shit for almost everyone

Well perhaps, or perhaps we would have developed space flight 50 years earlier or whatever, but nations not coming into existence is not an offensive topic.
 
Well perhaps, or perhaps we would have developed space flight 50 years earlier or whatever, but nations not coming into existence is not an offensive topic.
i am not offended i just say that the world would be worse for most people because of a latter discovery of america it would delay the industrial revolution which was good for most people in the long term it would be good for the nobles and it could lead to a longer feudal system
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
i am not offended i just say that the world would be worse for most people because of a latter discovery of america it would delay the industrial revolution which was good for most people in the long term it would be good for the nobles and it could lead to a longer feudal system

Sorry, mate. I was referring back to the post I was answering, @Pentapolim said it was offensive to deny the legitimacy of Spain and Portugal.
 
Because it took seven centuries for the Christian kingdoms to expel the Moors decisively, and during all that time they were, at best, equal, with the Christians arguably getting the shorter end of the stick until at least the 14th century. Heck, we have Vikings invading Moorish Iberia and getting kicked out, the same Vikings that created the Norman empire(s) of northern Europe. In fact, one has to wonder why didn't the Franks and Normans try to "liberate" Iberia if they're as equal as you imply. During most of the Middle Ages, Christians were getting their face kicked in by Muslim armies. The best the Normans were able to do was kick the Moors out of Sicily, but that's about it.
The Normans were good enough to defeat the Muslims,Lombards,the Romans,the Germans and the Pope of all people in Southern Italy,what made you think the Moors are any better?
 
I agree with the bulk of your posts on this thread, but the bold part of this one stands out as odd. Do nations have the right to exist?

I mean, people do, but nations? Only, I would argue, as an extension of self- determination of the people constituting said nation. Even then, this is an incredibly modern viewpoint for examining the formation of states in the 10th and 11th century, as well as their successors. If nations have any rights, they're surely only possessed in a post-Versailles world. Pre-Westphalia, we're just talking about the accumulation of land that all answers to the same top lord.

At the end of the day, nearly every state on the planet has conquest and subjugation woven through its history, often as foundation myth. Acknowledging that doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist today. They exist today because their modern day inhabitants desire it. This is why Cantabria, Mercia and Neustria don't; but other polities do. The lineage of nations is important culturally, historically, perhaps emotionally; but constitutionally? Not convinced.

What I meant for nation is really the modern notion of Spanish/Portuguese people and how they see themselves in the land they currently occupy today. So there is a possibility that people might be offended when someone refers to the process that they now understand as the reestabilishment(or estabilishment) of their home as unjust or ideologically twisted. There is no problem in problematizing periods of history in favor of seeing them under different perspectives, but in some cases you have to be careful to not hurt other people.
That is a strange post. The states of Spain and Portugal did not exist at the time of the Moorish conquest of Iberia, them never coming into existence would not have hurt anyone.

You're right, because there would be no spanish or portuguese people as we understand today to care about it. My point is not if it would matter or not both states coming into existence, or even how it would impact world history, but how both it's modern day inhabitants might be offended if you question how they came to be. Though I agree that, regardless of sensitivities, it is a necessary thing to do.
 
What I meant for nation is really the modern notion of Spanish/Portuguese people and how they see themselves in the land they currently occupy today. So there is a possibility that people might be offended when someone refers to the process that they now understand as the reestabilishment(or estabilishment) of their home as unjust or ideologically twisted. There is no problem in problematizing periods of history in favor of seeing them under different perspectives, but in some cases you have to be careful to not hurt other people.


You're right, because there would be no spanish or portuguese people as we understand today to care about it. My point is not if it would matter or not both states coming into existence, or even how it would impact world history, but how both it's modern day inhabitants might be offended if you question how they came to be. Though I agree that, regardless of sensitivities, it is a necessary thing to do.

At risk of probably being wrong, and possibly missing the point of discussion, where does the current situation with the Basques, and the Catalans fit in all of this, I think they are saying no, we are not and never have been part of Spain, except under duress. I feel that we are going around in circles with an insoluble argument, and the same could apply to a number of other places around the world.
 
Top