what if Spain Continued Reconquista?

finlholy.jpg


What I mean to say is what if Spain, instead of focusing on the Americas after the last Muslim stronghold in Granada fell, instead turned it's inquistionist eyes to the Holy Land?

Could 1492 Spain, and maybe a concert of other vehement Catholic nations attempt another assault, conquistador style on Jerusalem?

If successful, maybe Cortes could be the next King of Jerusalem :cool:
 
finlholy.jpg


What I mean to say is what if Spain, instead of focusing on the Americas after the last Muslim stronghold in Granada fell, instead turned it's inquistionist eyes to the Holy Land?

Could 1492 Spain, and maybe a concert of other vehement Catholic nations attempt another assault, conquistador style on Jerusalem?

If successful, maybe Cortes could be the next King of Jerusalem :cool:

Wouldn't that involve going up against the Mamluks and/or the Ottomans. In land much easier for them to defend in. So it would range from a draw to a absolute disaster for Spain.

Any continued reconquista would be in Morocco and work Inland and East from there.
 
Rather than Holy Land, you'd certainly see a continued Reconquista on Maghrib for various reasons.

First, for ideological reasons : North-Western North Africa was seen as the continuation of Spain in this regard, and specifically mentioned as such in Isabel's will : because Tingitana was part of the Diocese of Spain and once more or less under visigothic influence; because of the huge ties between Andalus and Maghrib and because most of forces of the former came from there.

Algraves named not only southern Portugal, but as well part of Morroco as well, as hinted with "Algarve behind the sea" and "Algarves from either side of the sea in Africa".

Then, for political ones. Morroco was just on the way to Sudanese trade (gold, salt, slaves) which was the main focus of maritime expeditions of Portugal and Spain in the XVth century (going up to Indias, is a secondary tought issued from it). Its conquest, at least on shores, was often seen as a necessity to secure these trade roads.

Portugal control over its coasts between the XVth and XVIth hints that.
 
Wouldn't that involve going up against the Mamluks and/or the Ottomans. In land much easier for them to defend in. So it would range from a draw to a absolute disaster for Spain.

Any continued reconquista would be in Morocco and work Inland and East from there.

Sure. Morroco is the most "winnable" scenario for Spain but Jerusalem would have had far more religious precedent.

And arguably I think they could do it, considering the advantage in Naval power it had over the like of the Mamulukes.

Add in some Portuguese Guns.

Jerusalem would be a challenge but it's feasible.
 
Sure. Morroco is the most "winnable" scenario for Spain but Jerusalem would have had far more religious precedent.
Actually, no. A continued Reconquista (which is all about Spain and the last centuries of warfare) would imply taking on traditional ennemies, not a new one.
Taking on Palestina would be discontinuing with Reconquista, while made in a continued mentality (as it did happen with Americas).

And arguably I think they could do it, considering the advantage in Naval power it had over the like of the Mamulukes.
They weren't the most strong of their age, granted, but still had to be taken in account, would it be only because it would piss Italian and Aragonese merchants out of their mind.

Eventually what mattered was less projecting naval power, than winning on land. Crusaders learned how much it was hard and it required them being blockaded on several parts for being taken over by Ottomans.

The questions are

- Why should have they done that, when they had more obvious, easier and wealthiest targets; and when who dominated Mediterranean Sea weren't keen on taking on Mameluks that were natural trade partners.
- How this naval power would counterbalance the problems of a far conquest against a power quite well supplied in Egypt, and not yet weakened on Red Sea at this point.

At some point, someone in Iberian courts would have said "Wait. This is a bad idea. Why should we do that?" and some good answers would have be needed.
 
They weren't the most strong of their age, granted, but still had to be taken in account, would it be only because it would piss Italian and Aragonese merchants out of their mind.

Eventually what mattered was less projecting naval power, than winning on land. Crusaders learned how much it was hard and it required them being blockaded on several parts for being taken over by Ottomans.

The questions are

- Why should have they done that, when they had more obvious, easier and wealthiest targets; and when who dominated Mediterranean Sea weren't keen on taking on Mameluks that were natural trade partners.
- How this naval power would counterbalance the problems of a far conquest against a power quite well supplied in Egypt, and not yet weakened on Red Sea at this point.

At some point, someone in Iberian courts would have said "Wait. This is a bad idea. Why should we do that?" and some good answers would have be needed.


Well Cortes taking on the Aztecs, which was wayyyyy further away was still done under the auspices of royal authority so at least some in the court thought adventurism in such a far flung land was indeed in the best interests of the crown.

So again, why not Palastine?

It was rich and would have made the Pope ecstatic, two things the crown valued.

Though I wonder, was the technological difference gap between Cortes and the Aztecs similar to the gap between Spain and the Mamlukes in terms of Naval and Gunpowder?
 
Though I wonder, was the technological difference gap between Cortes and the Aztecs similar to the gap between Spain and the Mamlukes in terms of Naval and Gunpowder?

No, I don't think so. The Mamluks would have been way tougher, not to mention the germs would probably be on the opposite side this time.
 
Well Cortes taking on the Aztecs, which was wayyyyy further away was still done under the auspices of royal authority
Well, it wasn't. Cortes was a rogue capitan, an outlaw for the only real delegate of royal authority, Velázquez (the governor of Hispañola) to send an army after him.

That his expedition was acknwoledged later doesn't make it less of a munity. The fact it happened wayyyyy futher away made it possible in first place : would have he attempted that in Mediterranean...

So again, why not Palastine?
Obviously, Palastine would be doable. But not Palestine.
More seriously, no convenient epidemical shock, no technological advence, no important allies in sight, etc.
All of that would certainly not be a thing.

If we admit we're talking, not of a rogue expedition, but about a real organised and royal-supported one, we still have to wonder why would they attempted such thing in first place.

It was rich and would have made the Pope ecstatic, two things the crown valued.
I think you're giving too much credit to the "Spaniards=Fanatically devoted to pope" cliché. Catholics Kings were about supporting the pope as long he was supporting them.

Undergoing a likely failable expeditions just for him, without real political need to please Rome...

As for the wealth, that's the whole point : Sudanese trade was clearly more promising : wealthier, closer and with less issues about taking over it.

Though I wonder, was the technological difference gap between Cortes and the Aztecs similar to the gap between Spain and the Mamlukes in terms of Naval and Gunpowder?
On matters of naval warfare, Portuguese had the upper hand on Mameluks relatively easily. But, it's likely that the latter would, as IOTL, ask Ottomans for help and Ottoman navy was clearly something else : in Mediterranean Sea, stuck between Mameluks on land and Ottomans by sea.

Let's say it's not going to be a military promenade*

As for the technical difference on matter of gunpowder, the answer is an unquestionable no. The technological difference between Europe and Arabo-Islamic world was virtually inexistant.
You could ask the basileus about Ottoman technological lack in gunpowder...Wait. :p

*Mother of all euphemism.
 
What I mean to say is what if Spain, instead of focusing on the Americas after the last Muslim stronghold in Granada fell, instead turned it's inquistionist eyes to the Holy Land?

Could 1492 Spain, and maybe a concert of other vehement Catholic nations attempt another assault, conquistador style on Jerusalem?

No. The New World was vulnerable to Spanish attack due to the impact of European diseases and the superior arms of the Spanish.

That was absolutely not true in the Near East. The Near East had nation states that were as wealthy and powerful as Spain itself. European Christians had made strenuous efforts to conquer the "Holy Land" from Moslems, stretching well over 200 years and drawing on realms from Scandinavia and England to Sicily and Hungary. All these efforts ended in complete defeat, and there was no interest in trying again.
 
No. The New World was vulnerable to Spanish attack due to the impact of European diseases and the superior arms of the Spanish.

That was absolutely not true in the Near East. The Near East had nation states that were as wealthy and powerful as Spain itself. European Christians had made strenuous efforts to conquer the "Holy Land" from Moslems, stretching well over 200 years and drawing on realms from Scandinavia and England to Sicily and Hungary. All these efforts ended in complete defeat, and there was no interest in trying again.
I have to agree.
The (re)Conquest of North Africa from the Muslims was a failure.
That was not because of lack of trying.
The (Muslim) North Africans and the Turks were too good fighters.
 
In her will, Isabella I advocated the continuation of the Reconquista to retrieve North Africa and the Holy Land, but always starting by the old Hispanic province of Mauretania Tingitana (Morocco).

Therefore, if Spain would not have been forced to intervene in the imperial wars of Carlos V -e.g., if the Infante Miguel da Paz would have survived in 1500, causing the meeting of the thrones of Portugal, Castile and Aragon in his person-, it is very likely Spain have initiated a major campaign for the Reconquista of the currents Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia.
 
The Crusade ideal was dead by 1492. Europe had accepted defeat. As others have stated, any continuation of the Reconquista would be directed toward the Maghreb. If that was truly achieved after some point in time, then the next targets would likely have been the islands in the Eastern Mediterranean - Crete, Cyprus, Rhodes, and the Dodecanese. If that was done, then maybe a concerted effort to push the Turks out of Europe in the Balkans. Only after that would I expect a major push for the Holy Land by which time we are way after 1492.

The Ottomans were a formidable adversary. Nobody could go straight for the Holy Land without clearing the way first.
 
The Crusade ideal was dead by 1492. Europe had accepted defeat. As others have stated, any continuation of the Reconquista would be directed toward the Maghreb.

I disagree with the first part and agree with the second. The justifications of the Crusade and crusading spirit were a big thing, at least for the Portuguese. Which they used in Maghreb.

I agree with the rest, in 1492 nobody would dare touch the Ottomans, everybody was pretty much soiling their pants at the thought of them
 
Top