WI: Muslims win Battle fo Covagonda

As we know, the Battle of Covadonga, won by the Asturias, is seen as the founding stone of the future Reconquista of Ibéria by the Christians.
Some info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Covadonga

But... what if Pelájo and his Asturians lost? Would this stop, or delay the Reconquista? Would it not change entirely?

EDIT: Pelajo can die and live, though, considering the low numbers, I find it hard for him to survive such battle.
 
Last edited:
The battle of Covadonga, if it actually happened at all, was pretty much an irrelevant skirmish, so no big change.

And of course, the so called "Reconquista" is a long, multifaceted and complex enough proccess that looking for a sole, conscious founding stone probably is an oversymplification that was supported by traditional historiography in Spain and Portugal (and elsewhere) for political reasons. In 722 (nor in the following two centuries, at least) there was hardly any concept of Reconquista, by the way.
 
It's certainly a strong base from which to build. There may have been influences on the future development of the reconquista, such as where its support would draw the most strength from. Could it have been supported by French regions or surprising sources from Basque regions? Either possibility could have been significant for the influence and culture of a new united Spain and its neighbors. More likely, however, similar regions could have rebelled or been bases for such remaining Christian forces of Spain as the Muslims may not have held power everywhere at once for long.
 
The battle of Covadonga, if it actually happened at all, was pretty much an irrelevant skirmish, so no big change.

And of course, the so called "Reconquista" is a long, multifaceted and complex enough proccess that looking for a sole, conscious founding stone probably is an oversymplification that was supported by traditional historiography in Spain and Portugal (and elsewhere) for political reasons. In 722 (nor in the following two centuries, at least) there was hardly any concept of Reconquista, by the way.

True, it might not stop the Reconquista, but it will change it. The Asturian-Leonese dinasty, however, pretty much gets wiped out at birth if Pelájo dies. if the Asturias get conquered, it might be delayed by some years. That means no Kingdom of Asturias, nor Kingdom of Leon, and probrably wipes out Kingdom of Galicia on the way.

EDIT: Can a helpful mod please fix the typo on the title? I meant to type "of" but it came "fo" instead, only saw it naw. Thanks.
 
Covagonda

The battle of Covadonga, if it actually happened at all, was pretty much an irrelevant skirmish, so no big change.

And of course, the so called "Reconquista" is a long, multifaceted and complex enough proccess that looking for a sole, conscious founding stone probably is an oversymplification that was supported by traditional historiography in Spain and Portugal (and elsewhere) for political reasons. In 722 (nor in the following two centuries, at least) there was hardly any concept of Reconquista, by the way.
I agree. If the Caliphate of Cordova had never broken up, the Christians would have been basically permanently in the north.
 
Well, the battle of Covadonga was indeed important (it certainly happened, even if the arab and Christian historiograhpies tend to exxagerate or minor his importance). But not that decisive.

I'm not agree with the disapparence of Perez (Asturo-Leonese) dynasty disappering. Where Pelayo and his son were maybe not originary from the region, the count Pedro was influent and if the Pelayez married Emersinda to Alfonso, it wasn't for giggles.

With the christian army defeated during a skirmish, nothing would have really change. The Arabs wali couldn't keep their authority respected beyond the Duero Basin very well anyway. Galicia or upper Ebro would be keeped or in tractados land or under berber garrisons.

After the Berber Revolt of 740, OTL, christian took back many cities that were just emptied of their garrisons, the berber being attacking Cordoba. I don't see how the fact that the asturians would be nominally under Islamic rule would change anything to that : Christian would use this revolt and the civil war in Al-Andalus (that began in 739 to end during the reign of Abd al Rahman II) to take control of 1/6of the peninsula.

Covadonga is important for historiography, for the Christians having a better position for reconquering lands that Arabo-Berbers couldn't keep with the Revolt and the civil war, and for culture. But, at the end, if you don't change the issues of Al-Andalus (that are at 80% the issues of all western Caliphate, if not the whole of Islamic world), Christian would reconquer the North easily.
 
True, it might not stop the Reconquista, but it will change it. The Asturian-Leonese dinasty, however, pretty much gets wiped out at birth if Pelájo dies. if the Asturias get conquered, it might be delayed by some years. That means no Kingdom of Asturias, nor Kingdom of Leon, and probrably wipes out Kingdom of Galicia on the way.

No, since IOTL the Astur-Leonese dynasty didn't descend from Pelayo anyway, but from the Dukes of Cantabria.

For all we know Pelayo was elected leader by a group of local notables and if he had died in an ambush they would have just chosen another in his place. The later stories depicting him as one of Roderic/Rodrigo's men (if not relative), a Visigothic noble of royal blood from Toledo and all are just that, stories.

As other have said, the birth of the 'Reconquista' has more to do with early developments in Muslim Spain and its lack of interest in the cold, humid North than with any battle or Christian leader.
 
Covagonda

In many history classes, I've often heard the assumption that the Spanish Muslims were "foolish" for not completing the entire conquest of the Iberian peninsula, and allowing the Christians to re-establish themselves in the north. Obviously this is an over simplification and the foundation of Asturias was not the primary cause of the "reconquista". (As others have pointed out).
 
Well, the battle of Covadonga was indeed important (it certainly happened, even if the arab and Christian historiograhpies tend to exxagerate or minor his importance). But not that decisive.

I'm not agree with the disapparence of Perez (Asturo-Leonese) dynasty disappering. Where Pelayo and his son were maybe not originary from the region, the count Pedro was influent and if the Pelayez married Emersinda to Alfonso, it wasn't for giggles.

With the christian army defeated during a skirmish, nothing would have really change. The Arabs wali couldn't keep their authority respected beyond the Duero Basin very well anyway. Galicia or upper Ebro would be keeped or in tractados land or under berber garrisons.

After the Berber Revolt of 740, OTL, christian took back many cities that were just emptied of their garrisons, the berber being attacking Cordoba. I don't see how the fact that the asturians would be nominally under Islamic rule would change anything to that : Christian would use this revolt and the civil war in Al-Andalus (that began in 739 to end during the reign of Abd al Rahman II) to take control of 1/6of the peninsula.

Covadonga is important for historiography, for the Christians having a better position for reconquering lands that Arabo-Berbers couldn't keep with the Revolt and the civil war, and for culture. But, at the end, if you don't change the issues of Al-Andalus (that are at 80% the issues of all western Caliphate, if not the whole of Islamic world), Christian would reconquer the North easily.

This is of course assumes that the Berber revolt, an event that depended on the animosity and hatred of the Berbers of one governor, would happen with a
PoD this early.
 
This is of course assumes that the Berber revolt, an event that depended on the animosity and hatred of the Berbers of one governor, would happen with a PoD this early.

The Berber revolt is the answer to the policy of Caliphate and Arab nobles towards the muwalldis since the VII. Since the battle is relativly minor, involves few troops and is not going to change anything, victory or defeat, to the status of Berbers.

I don't see anything how a victory under the Christian at Covadonga (that would not change many things than OTL) could push the Kalbits and Qais Arabs to stop fighting each other and to stop treating Berbers as dirt (that they did since the conquest of Africa).

The Berber revolt of 740 needs a REALLY earlier POD, corresponding to the foundation of the Caliphate (or at least, the beggining of Berber-Arabs wars of 650's). And one the Berbers are revolting somewhere, as they kept strong links with "emigrate" tribes and families in Al-Andalus, these will revolt themselves immediatly.
 
The Berber revolt is the answer to the policy of Caliphate and Arab nobles towards the muwalldis since the VII. Since the battle is relativly minor, involves few troops and is not going to change anything, victory or defeat, to the status of Berbers.

I don't see anything how a victory under the Christian at Covadonga (that would not change many things than OTL) could push the Kalbits and Qais Arabs to stop fighting each other and to stop treating Berbers as dirt (that they did since the conquest of Africa).

The Berber revolt of 740 needs a REALLY earlier POD, corresponding to the foundation of the Caliphate (or at least, the beggining of Berber-Arabs wars of 650's). And one the Berbers are revolting somewhere, as they kept strong links with "emigrate" tribes and families in Al-Andalus, these will revolt themselves immediatly.

The actual circumstances of the Berber Revolt were caused by the governor of Ifriqya being incredibly bad to them, beyond usual Arab discrimination. He ignored the edict of Umar and did not recognize Muslim Berbers as Muslims. That's an incredibly daft act and one that could have been avoided. Yes, it's obvious that the Berbers were on a collision course with the Arabs when it came to discrimination by the latter, but the specific choices which led to the revolt in OTL are incredibly circumstantial. The Berber revolt could have happened later or earlier.
 
The actual circumstances of the Berber Revolt were caused by the governor of Ifriqya being incredibly bad to them, beyond usual Arab discrimination.
It was the straw that broke the camel's back. All the governors of Ifryqia (Fihrids and not) were particularly jerks about it.
720 : Yazid ibn Abi Muslim created a mameluk-like guard with bebers deprived of liberty and marked with tatoos with his name.

735 : Ubayad allah ibn Hahbab create sort of wali-adjoint to islamize Magrhib -understanding here, making more money. We have here a specificly created insitution for that.

And it's just for the most obviously ones.

It wasn't really about one particular man, but about the all Umayyad's oppression. The kharidjit "heresy" is not formed in Maghrib just in 740's but far before, as a tool against the caliphal's religious institutions.

He ignored the edict of Umar and did not recognize Muslim Berbers as Muslims.
As everyone except Umar.
This "edict" was supported by almost nobody.

The Arabs sensed themselves weakened by the acknowledgment of "yeah, Muwalladi are Muslims too", and pretty angry to the tought having paying taxes.

The Berbers feeled that their fiscal explotation was officialized by the edict. 'Okay we raised taxes on you and it was illegal because you're Muslims too. But now, we raise the same taxes and some others one, and it's legal!"

If Umar managed to make some aeras of the eastern part of Caliphate applying his orders (and been acknowledged even by Abbasids), the western Islam was already autonomous and lived his own life without too much trouble as long they given some taxes recipes to Dimashq.


That's an incredibly daft act and one that could have been avoided.
The particularly act? Yes, maybe. But not all this kind of action towards Berbers. If the wali didn't do that, some other would have done. Probably the one who will have replaced the first, because he was a "Berber-lover" for the nobles.

The Berber revolt could have happened later or earlier.
Earlier? Quite difficult. The conquest of Hispania and the raids in Gaul have beared hope to a better life among the Berbers, and the result of loot and plunder have probably compensed the fiscal oppression.

Later? Why not, but not after the Abbas's coup d'état. It would have been a too important occasion to not loose for the Berbers.
 
Well, the battle of Covadonga was indeed important (it certainly happened, even if the arab and Christian historiograhpies tend to exxagerate or minor his importance). But not that decisive.

.

Well, can you grant me that there was an encounter between Umayid troops and asturians in the exact place of Covadonga? That it had any special significance instead being something that fits with the traditional relation of the area with external powers? Covadonga has probably been a sacred place for local popuations since the Prehistory. Even the river that has its sources in the cave is called Deva. If it wasn't enough with the "fundational" battle happening in a sacred place, the asturians were commanded by someone from visigothic noble ascendancy, legit successor of Roderic etc, the stories mentioned by Tocomocho. Besides, only in the Asturias (which at the time is already an enough confussing term) there are tons of valleys before Covadonga to fall in an ambush, all of them pretty much exactly like the other. Doesn't sounds it a bit suspicious?
 
Well, can you grant me that there was an encounter between Umayid troops and asturians in the exact place of Covadonga?
I can't grant you that it was something at the exact place of Covadonga as nobody can grant totally the place of a battle before modern times. But that a battle occured between Christians (I don't use Asturian or anything else, mostly because these population or at least their elites definied themselves mainly as Christian) and Arabo-Berbers.

Such a battle is recorded by both sides (the Christian chronicles being written three centuries later, OF COURSE it have to been used cautiously).


Paragraph about emplacment
Once again, i don't really care if Covadonga was or wasn't the "real" place. We use "Battle of Covadonga" because it's far more easy to say than "A battle between Christian and Arabo-Berbers somewhere in the middle of the Cantabrian Mountains' valley between the Conquista and the Berber Revolt".

I don't think it's relevant, even if it's interesting, for this thread : if it was about Battle of Poitiers, shoud we have a discussion about how the battle wasn't settled at Poitiers?
 
I can't grant you that it was something at the exact place of Covadonga as nobody can grant totally the place of a battle before modern times. But that a battle occured between Christians (I don't use Asturian or anything else, mostly because these population or at least their elites definied themselves mainly as Christian) and Arabo-Berbers.

Such a battle is recorded by both sides (the Christian chronicles being written three centuries later, OF COURSE it have to been used cautiously).



Once again, i don't really care if Covadonga was or wasn't the "real" place. We use "Battle of Covadonga" because it's far more easy to say than "A battle between Christian and Arabo-Berbers somewhere in the middle of the Cantabrian Mountains' valley between the Conquista and the Berber Revolt".

I don't think it's relevant, even if it's interesting, for this thread : if it was about Battle of Poitiers, shoud we have a discussion about how the battle wasn't settled at Poitiers?

You are missing my point. The emplacement is only another element amongst others to be at least suspicious about the historicity of the "Battle of Covadonga". I have recalled several other elements, mainly about the symbolic elements around the event. If you think that this is irrelevant, wether we are talking about a matter of historical events or an historical propaganda construction with legitimation intents, I can't say anything else.

I don't think it's irrelevant, because "another place" may have been even another place meaningfully different. For example, it could have been a "reconstruction" of the battle fought in the passes from the Meseta to Cantabria and led by the duke of Cantabria (an event that historically is a more incotrovertible fact), and that changes a lot the light of this discussion.

It's not the same thing to talk about the king Arthur than to talk about the saxon invasion of Britain, for example. It's not the same to discuss about the Iliad than to discuss about Troy VII. Constantine's "visions" in the Pons Milvius are not the same that the tactical elements of the battle itself and its political consequences, etc.
 
You are missing my point. The emplacement is only another element amongst others to be at least suspicious about the historicity of the "Battle of Covadonga". I have recalled several other elements, mainly about the symbolic elements around the event. If you think that this is irrelevant, wether we are talking about a matter of historical events or an historical propaganda construction with legitimation intents, I can't say anything else.
All battles of the conquista, from the first raids of 700's to XI century were heavily mythified, magnified or even totally invented by any side in presence (Asturians, Basques, Odonids, Carolingians).

We're forced to "reconstitue" elements with the few sources avaible (chronicles, historians, archeology), but until we can say that a battle never occur (as Clavijo) using this name (being aware of the blur about it) is better that don't caring about what we have to take all this from zero.

All this period was historical propaganda, i can't honestly think of one relation of battle that didn't was totally re-written. And all of them are not to be saw suspiciously.

For the symbolical history of Covadonga before the "Kingdom of Asturias", you're right. But if the battle occured it, it wouldn't the first time that an already charged (symbolically and culturally) would have been the theater of a more recent event.
And, if the battle occured in this valley, among many semblables places avaible in a relativly fortified aera around Europa's Mountains, why not indeed invest a place already known and having a strategic importance?

I'm not saying that it was the case, but the cultural and symbolical change of this aera from a more primitive state is consecutive and not formative of this battle. If it was actually a battle at Covadonga, i doubt that the Christian said "Let's fight it, in order to change the symbolical identity of this semi-pagan place after our victory, and make it the historiographical foundation of Asturias'.


I don't think it's irrelevant, because "another place" may have been even another place meaningfully different. For example, it could have been a "reconstruction" of the battle fought in the passes from the Meseta to Cantabria and led by the duke of Cantabria (an event that historically is a more incotrovertible fact), and that changes a lot the light of this discussion.
It changes some tactical and features of the POD, yes. But, not that much. After all, this region was quite small (the fortified one around Europe's Mountains) and as you said, these valleys are quite similar. So, strategically the change wouldn't be so great to have great consequences as a POD.

So again, the light is more about details here than what could change if a battle in the central Asturias turn in the Muslim's victory.

You're focusing on the symbolical range of Covadonga before and after the first half of VIII. Nobody denied the high mythification of this battle and the uncertitude about the emplacement, the date or the fact it's a reconstruction or not.

Regarding the valley of Dobra, well the way from Meseta by Ambieva is not shocking and could make sense, as it was used as a way to the other side of Cantabria's Mountains since the Antiquity.

Then, yes, the reconquista legendarium have used the pre-700, pre-christian and even prehistoric features to base itself (The Church of Canguas is a good exemple), but it didn't demonstrate the impossibility or the unlikely of the battle itself.

Since we have not archeological evidence, or other testimony about it, we can't say with any certitude that which emplacement or which not was the one of this battle.

Regarding the memory's reconstruction, maybe it was indeed a reflexion of another battle in these mountains, but the Cantabrian were the theater of many raids, many battles during the VIII-XI era that it could be place for two, three, etc. battles in the same aeras not forcefully connected.

Now, i repeat it, the observation you made are interesting, and because of the too great blur about this, when i re-wrote my TL about this period, i "changed" the place to Ambieva. I just think we're agreeing, but talk about two different faces of this subject.
 
Top