Was it genocide?

reconquista happend 900 yers later though

Almost as bad as the Proto-Indo-European Hyperwars, in why the Aryans literally killed everyone who didn't speak their language.

>killed

*linguistically killed

there's a difference lad, we're all being killed linguistically by the English oppressors

Make better threads.
Your trolling is weak.

>pest control
>them "muds" were the reason Spain was so rich in the first place

This
Iberians were lucky to have cultural interaction with umayyad caliphat

>Taking back your land is genocide.

Nah dude it was making España great again!

was it genocide?

Only white people can commit genocide.

>your land

was it genocide?

R.I.P Mozarabic.You were a great romance language ! We still miss you !

It wasn't Muslim, that's for sure.

Arab kingdoms in Spain were way better in everything compared to the former spanish kingdoms of the north

>your land

That's why a lot of Christian Spaniards immigrated to "occupied" territory because of the better living conditions and opportunities to advance right?

No, genocide means power + prejudice.

They didn't. Only delusional Muslims believe that.

I like your reasoning

>They didn't.
Wrong.
>Only delusional Muslims believe that.
I'm not a Muslim.

>removing moors is a bad thing
What is your religion OP?

Ethnic cleansing, more precisely. Most were alive when they were either forcibly converted or expelled to North Africa.

>How did southern Iberia go from 100% Visigothic
Southern Iberia was never 100% Visigothic

The Byzantine conquest was for sure

so multiple instances of genocide by arabs then?

>MOM LOOK, I SHITPOSTED AGAIN!

Are you also listening to Linkin Park right now? I can feel the edge all the way over here in Antarctica.

It was still mostly Christard.

By Castille, more like. Southern Spain was Hispano-Roman, and the Arabs never changed this. The Asturians meanwhile were descendants of Germanic settlers and Cantabrians, tribes who never settled and replaced the southerners until the colonization and expulsion policies of Castille-Leon.

more like borg-style assimilation

Iberia had been rich since the Roman era.

watch out bro, the PC cucks are coming for ya

>invade place
>be mad when people you invaded kick you out

I'll never understand what makes Muslims so fucking retarded

It can't be genocide when the mudskins themselves didnt belong there

>implying the Caliphate wasnt the superpower of its time
>implying Islam doesnt dictate that you destroy non believers with extreme prejudice
Nice try Mohamed

Islam

but most of the muslims were descendants of christians who had converted over the centuries

>Implying the vast majority of Muslims weren't ethnic Iberians
>After 700 years
>Implying southern Iberians didn't consider the Castilian savage to be an invaders

To put things into perspective, Islamic Iberia existed for a longer period of time than modern Spain.

Wait, so what happened in the 15th century?

Christian Spain was far better than its Muslim predecessor

also its "goodness" is irrelevant
Muslims had been pushing and pushing trying to take everything over, the Reconquista was a great victory and set a hard limit where on the Muslim advance.

That's a great question, entirely dependent on your definition of genocide.

To the best of my knowledge, there were no initial massacres, except for the kinds of war crimes that characterized most medieval conquests. While Muslims were oppressed by their new Christian rulers, there is no evidence of people being targeted for their ethnicity rather than their religion.

While there is some evidence of the descendants of Jews and Muslims being disliked by their neighbors (something that pushed mass amounts of Conversos and Moriscos to flee to America), there is no evidence of them being murdered after becoming Christian. If you accepted Christ, your life would be spared.

This is generally the model of massacre throughout up until the recent past. Murdering non-heretical civilians of your own faith was a pretty big no-no, even during wartime. Spanish oppression against the Maya, for instance, lessened dramatically after the mass conversion of Mexican peoples to Catholicism.

You're a cunt. As bad as Islam can be, 12th century Christianity really wasn't much better.

Marxian
Spaniards have a lot of respect for their Muslim history. but acting like Christian victory was some great evil is incredibly stupid.

Al-Andalus was a freak of nature, it was wealthy but Islam itself is an ideological cancer

Muslims think they have the right to occupy all humanity for the sake of Gods will, therefore any land not held by Muslims naturally angers them

I know this is bait, but this question is predicated on ignorance. Southern Iberia was never 100% Visogothic. Visogoths formed a ruling class of presumably approximate size to the Berbers and Arabs. The amount of Germanic tribespeople entering Iberia was far smaller than the native, mostly Latinate population. This is why Spanish is derivative of Latin rather than Old East Germanic.

>12th century Christianity really wasn't much better.
what do you know of either exactly?

There was likely some genocidal violence, but this has happened in every mass conquest. The Muslim allowance of polygamy generally spared the lives of women, but this happened throughout Christendom as well. Muslim soldiers simply married women before they raped them.

no it was progress
evil white mudhut dwellers were oppressing wealthy Muslim princes and their armies by not being Muslim.

Dumb shitposter

Even the most Islamoapologetic SJW would admit that Muslim Arabs had power over the Levantine, North African, and Iberian peoples they subjugated.

Nah, the city of Granada was overwhelmingly Muslim due to urban refugees from the rest of Iberia migrating there for centuries. In less than 50 years, the population of Granada actually doubled due to an influx of refugees. This is really inconceivable. There is no modern analogue for a city growing so quickly due to immigration.

However, I'd guess that the countryside was substantially, if not predominantly, Christian.

Muslims were the urban majority everywhere while the rural areas were almost always christian, especially in Egypt/the levant

also to say that Christians 'loved" their Muslim masters is pretty silly considering how many defected to the Crusader armies as they liberated one city after another.

I don't like this attitude. While I believe that all aggressive conquest is wrong, Islam isn't any more less European than Christianity is. Christianity simply took hold in Europe earlier.

Granada and Castille were not enemies. Despite being Muslim, centuries of neighborhood fostered a friendly, if unequal, partnership between the kingdoms. Castille's long alliance Granada was one of the main reasons why Castille could win the struggle against Aragon, former hegemon of Iberia.

The Emirate of Granada was the continuation of the Almohad and Almoravid empires, two huge Sunni states which spanned from the Mediterranean all the way to the Sahel, rubbing against the massive trade-based societies of inland West Africa.

These invaluable trade networks allowed an enormous amount of African gold and slaves to flow up through Morocco into Granada. By keeping Granada as an ally rather than a territory, Castille gained access to these trade networks and also was able to use Grenadine troops to reinforce their own armies.

Once the centuries-old rivalry between Castille and Aragon was ended, Granada's independence was less necessary. An idiotic Granadan attempt to intimidate the Castillians through raids of border villages ended any hope of cooperation, and a decade later Granada would be completely conquered by Castille during a Grenadine civil war.

>Defected to crusaders

Source would be appreciated

Not really no, seeing as how the only people who really got driven out of spain were the jews.

Careful you will get banned by the cuck moderators here

the battle of Valencia against the Almoravids under El Cid is the biggest one I know of

mostly because the Moorish Almoravids were especially brutal to Spanish Christians and Jews, compared to the earlier small states or Caliphate whom mostly were occupied with protecting their own power against other Muslims.

I'll vouch for him, I've seen it in a few places. They were sure mad about having to preach in Arabic though.

the pop history answer is the inquisition was a genocide but it really wasn't, not to mention its been grossly exaggerated by protestants for their own ends

German scum couldn't accept that a Catholic Spanish Empire was master of all Europe and beyond

Thanks for that. Guess I really didn't realize how long the Reconquista was.

The Reconquista really began in the late middle ages, several centuries after Muslims had stopped advancing. After the fall of the Umayyad caliphate, the fractured Iberian region was assembled into an interestingly secular jigsaw puzzle.

The rulers of Catholic kingdoms like Castille and Galicia really didn't care much for Christian solidarity. They allied with Muslims whenever it was politically expedient. There is at least one case of a Christian king publicly declaring friendship with an allied Muslim Emir. A great example is that of Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, whom you know as "El Cid".

"Cid" is not a Spanish appellation. It's the Hispanized corruption of "sidi", which itself comes from "Sayyid"... a very Arabic, very Muslim title of respect. El Cid, despite being Catholic, spent most of his life fighting as a warlord for various Muslim Emirs. He later forged his own state out of former Muslim territory, but only after decades of Muslim servitude.

It's a lot easier to want to conquer everybody of another religion if you haven't been living together in relative stability for centuries. We saw the exact same relationship in the Middle East, after crusader states had been carved out in the Levant. After a few generations of peace, Christians and Muslims both accepted this stasis. Religious conquest was not seen as the natural outcome of this arrangement.

In Spain and in the Levant, wars of religion did not simply happen. Christians and Muslims only conquered their longstanding neighbors once leaders on either side had convinced their states that conquest was the best option.

In practice, Christianity and Islam were both used to encourage or justify acts of extreme violence. The Crusades really weren't any less brutal than what ISIS is doing now. We don't have very good sources of the 7th-century Muslim expansion, but I'd expect it was equally violent.

While I believe that Christianity, in theory, is more peaceful and ethical than Islam, Christian leaders throughout the Middle Ages did not adhere very closely to the humanistic teachings of Jesus.

Que?

I never said that Christians loved the Muslims who lorded over them. But a stasis had been created. Most Christians in both the Middle East and Spain would prefer Christian rule, but because they were allowed to practice their religion in relative peace there was only resentment, and not violent rebellion.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that Muslims were the urban majority everywhere. Do you have a source for that?

ah yes, here comes the apologist out of the woodwork to spout his "dey didu nuffin!" drivel

when the Caliphate collapsed the Moroccan Almoravids moved in and did heavily assault the Christian kingdoms in an attempt of full takeover, not to mention subjugating the local Muslim city governors

christians allied with muslims, muslims allied with christians, they knew they were the same people and could work together, there was always mutual respect but in the end the goal was either liberation of Spain or subjugation by the growing Muslim power as it united once more.

don;t lecture me on El Cid, I know very well his first battle was against Christians as many Christians fought for Muslims and vice versa, but again that is not the issue at all just diversions.

saying it was not a war of religion is incredibly naive, dispite mutual understanding and a degree of respect for one another, not to mention political concerns, religion was always the main division and there could never have been a total peace until one group or the other had attained victory.

lets not forget the Martyrs of Cordoba or many others who were put down for daring to step out of line and not accept their status as second class citizens.

Muslim apologists are just as bad as slavery apologists who say it was "alright" because at least they were taken care of and their masters were mostly nice to them.
being "nice" is completely irrelevant if you are a subject population slowly being stripped of your culture and faith.

the tolerant Muslim "golden age" is one of many Liberal enlightenment myths to create this illusion of some long chain of progress up until the current day (which is the most enlightened by their reckoning) and vilify the Catholics

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/sine-data,_Wolf._Kenneth,_Christian_Martyrs_in_Muslim_Spain,_EN.pdf

Moors were nicer to Jews

>Christianity and Islam were both used to encourage or justify acts of extreme violence.
the difference is large scale violence is the exception in Christianity rather than the rule.

it wasn't until the abandonment of Christianity that Europe went on a spree of subjugation comparable to Islam.

The crusades were pretty brutal

they were a justifiable reaction insofar as any war can be justified

>when the Caliphate collapsed the Moroccan Almoravids moved in and did heavily assault the Christian kingdoms in an attempt of full takeover

Is that why they never actually invaded the north, and strictly attacked southern Iberia, and their only territorial gains despite several total victories was an independent Valencia?

if by South you mean the entire southern half of Spain where the Christians had reached by that time, pushing them back and killing Christian peasants/forcibly evicting them.

The Almoravids were interesting.

For anybody who isn't aware, they were a Berber-speaking dynasty of nomadic warriors who, like so many Islamic groups, quickly subjugated their neighbors. Not only did they conquer all of modern-day Morocco and Algeria, but they also expanded into West Africa and Spain.

In Spain, the Almoravids conquered most of the Taifas, or small Muslim emirates, which had existed in relative peace with their Muslim neighbors for about 200 years. While the Taifas were mostly Spanish-speaking and sometimes used peninsular Arabic as an administrative language, the Almoravids spoke Berber and used Maghrebi Arabic.

Most of the leaders of the Taifas were descended from peninsular Arabs and local Spaniards, while the Almoravids were entirely North African. They were culturally very non-Arab, famous wearing indigenous headscarves still worn in southern Morocco today. They were much more devout Muslims than the libertine Andalusians. A comparison between them and ISIS would not be too unfounded.

The Almoravids violently conquered both Catholics and fellow Sunni Muslims, which led to huge resentment from both sides. Christians and Muslims worked together to fight the Almoravids, and some Christian rulers coordinated their wars with those of the Almohads, an Algerian group who were more closely aligned to the Arabian peninsula, in both culture and religion. With Christian help, the Almohads would completely replace the Almoravids.

The biggest mistake you can make when studying medieval Spain is to assume that Muslims and Christians were always opposed to each other.

>ah yes, here comes the apologist out of the woodwork to spout his "dey didu nuffin!" drivel

Can you point to a single place where he said 'dey didu nuffin!' or do you usually just spout stupid memes for no reason?

Jews hated everyone and treated them like lesser animals

>if by South you mean the entire southern half of Spain where the Christians had reached by that time, pushing them back and killing Christian peasants/forcibly evicting them.
Oh, so your whole point about the Almoravids assaulting Christian kingdoms in an attempt to conquer them was completely false, and their one and only goal was consolidation of a Moorish south that had only just begun to collapse when the Almoravids were called in.

>Muslim apologists are just as bad as slavery apologists who say it was "alright" because at least they were taken care of and their masters were mostly nice to them.
>being "nice" is completely irrelevant if you are a subject population slowly being stripped of your culture and faith.
Reminiscent of how literally every western power right now is basically putting ultimatums on muslims in their countries to assimilate and let go of their culture and faith through a massive tour de force of propaganda and, well, force.

The Almoravids came before the Almohads, but still arrived decades after the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate.

I never said that the Muslim rulers of Spain were bastions of humanist thought, but they were generally less horrible than their contemporaries. I do not mean to say that all Christian rulers were fiercely intolerant of their Muslim subjects, but generally, Muslim monarchs allowed Christians to practice their religion, while Christian rulers did not give Muslims the same privilege.

All in all, the treatment of Christians by the rulers of the Taifas as well as the treatment of Muslims by high medieval Spaniards provides a sharp contrast to the mass expulsions under Ferdinand and Isabella.

I would argue that this shift away from tolerance happened because it was no longer politically necessary for a Muslim state to exist in southern Spain.

I disagree. The Crusades, as well as the Iberian conquest of the Americas, were both justified through a religious context.

You've taken a wrong turn, this isn't /pol/

No. It started in 750

>but in the end the goal was either liberation of Spain or subjugation by the growing Muslim power as it united once more.
Incorrect. It's only in the 12 century that this view started to appear, and then only on the northern side. The Moors launched major invasions of the north twice, the first in the initial Umayyad conquest and the second under a dictator who just raided and looted for prestige before the entire south collapsed after his death. Since then every single Almoravid, Almohad, or Nasrid campaign has been limited to the south, and all Moorish literature since then only ever mentions the loss or hopeful reconquest of the south. Meanwhile in the north the standard practice when conquering Moorish towns was to guarantee Muslim (and Jewish and Morisco) life and worship, and Moorish aristocracy were regularly incorporated into the state in Aragon, or constant vassals in Castille-Leon. It's only with the importation of Frankish Crusader culture that this changed.

Spain was the second wealthiest place in the western roman Empire,and then Iberians in the caliphate contributed the second most in terms of scientific discoveries/advancements. Arabs are just a liability,as they were in Persia.

defending Christian Spain deson't mean I support the Liberal West that exists currently.
my point is they abused the Spanish Muslims and Christians to the point they upset the stalemate that had existed and earned the ire of the Christian kingdoms who were under attack and really the only other powers on the peninsula

and it was the wealthiest kingdom on Earth by far after the conquest
arguably the most powerful as well for several centuries

Nope. The only good period of time were the Taifas and the Córdoba caliphate. The rest of the time the muslim part was full of religious zealots. If muslims were so food,how were the christian kingdoms able to attract so many inmigrants,despute having a worse weather,and arguably worse land?

The inmigration,was first to the North. Christians only moved south after the land was conquered again

>my point is they abused the Spanish Muslims and Christians to the point they upset the stalemate that had existed and earned the ire of the Christian kingdoms who were under attack and really the only other powers on the peninsula

That wasn't your point at all. Your point was to literally state the Almoravids launched wars of conquest against Christian Spain, and they never did. Hell, they only appeared in direct response to the upheaval of the long status quo when Toledo was annexed, and the places they attacked had only just been conquered by said Christian kingdoms.

The Christian kingdoms were on the attack, not the other way around, and the Almoravids just used that chance to take over Moorish Spain before the Catholic kings could. In short it was just the reverse situation with Charles Martel and Aquitaine.

Granada was Castile puppet,and Castile was probably the most advanced kingdom in Europe at the time. I dont know where you get your meme information

The Almoravids were shitheads. Literally the Galactic Empire of the medieval Western Mediterranean.

Until they came along, Muslims in Spain were able to drink wine and have sex with men without much objection from their leaders.

The reconquista did not exist.

Multiple wars were fought in which Christians took Muslim territory that was formerly part of the Visogothic kingdom. These wars happened over the span of many centuries, and were not always fought under a religious pretext.

>Islam isn't any more less European than Christianity is
Fuck off Mohamed. You have to go back.

Not unlike the French and their shifty influence on Spain. It was a period of fanatics from both sides coming in and imposing their foreign memes on Iberians.

>Castille's long alliance Granada was one of the main reasons why Castille could win the struggle against Aragon, former hegemon of Iberia.
This is borderline retarded.
Castile was bigger,with more population (5:1 ratio), a bigger army, a bigger navy, controlled the northern trade roots annd dominated the trade with Flanders. Aragon on the other hand was a decadent kingdom, that was overshadow by the italian city states.

If you like Islam so much why dont you move to Morocco? Why do you have to live in Europe? Let me tell you something. Your culture and religion are just inferior. Once you realise this,you will understand that assimilation or GTFO is the best policy.