Was the Reconquista a justified holy war?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

In the history of holy wars of Christianity one stands out as the most successful, with the greatest consequences and results. The Reconquista not only expelled Islamic influence from Spain and in the process, all of western Europe, it laid the foundation of the future Christian Kingdoms which would influence the course of the world for centuries to come, not only in Europe but in the new world and Asia.

The question I want to discuss and debate is whether or not the wars which established these Kingdoms were justified. Can they be justified on Christian grounds? What do we say about the necessary atrocities which were committed not only by the Muslims but the Spanish and Portuguese as well? Do these invalidate any all Christian pretext to the conflict between Islam and Christianity in Iberia?

My own opinion is that the Reconquista was a necessary response to Islamic aggression. Islamic aggression not only in their desire to wage Jihad but in their invasion of Spain in the first place against the Visigothic Kingdom. The only security Christian Kings could offer their subjects was to continue to push against the Islamic Taifas and once the momentum was in favour of the Christians it would have been irresponsible to stop. It would have been a neglect of the duty Kings owe to their subjects and would have compromised Christianity in Spain should the Taifas unite into a strong political enemy and try to finish what Tariq Ibn Ziyad started.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The Reconquista is far more nuanced than people realise. For instance: El Cid took service with Muslim emirs as well; the Beni Qasi of Northern Spain were actually the sons of Cassius, a Romano-Gothic nobleman that converted to Islam; Zaida of Seville became a Castillian queen; even Roland's famous rearguard action was an ambush by Christian Basques, not Muslim invaders.

It was natural for the Christian states to expand, as it would be for the Islamic ones. To complete the conquest of the Iberian peninsula would be the only way to establish secure borders, and furthermore, the Christian kingdoms traced descent back to Visigothic and Roman Hispania. This was in fits and starts, and especially when facing ruthless invaders like the Almohads, they had to have a forward policy. The Taifa statelets sometimes even allied with the Christians against each other, and when under the Almohads who were foreign North African invaders, the inhabitants of Al-Andalus often preferred their Christian neighbours. If we allow the principle of just wars, then these often were, and sometimes not as most things. The Reconquesta as a principle is much like Crusades in general - a bit against the peaceful spirit of Christianity, but an understandable and often legitimate response to the situation.

It is understandable - though the subjugation of the Mudejar Muslims within the Christian states and their eventual forced conversion as Moriscos and then their expulsion, not so much.

 

[East of Eden]

Any Christian persecuted by Muslim Spain I'm sure welcomed the relief. What were the Muslims doing in Spain anyway?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Any Christian persecuted by Muslim Spain I'm sure welcomed the relief. What were the Muslims doing in Spain anyway?

View attachment 297745

Trying to get into France and the rest of Europe. Keep in mind what they did through Christian North Africa, from what is now Saudi Arabia. They went both ways around the Mediterranean, taking Asia Minor one way, and all the way to the Iberian Penninsula the other way.