Was the Reconquista justified?

>"Reconquista"
>on lands that were ruled by various muslim emirates and taifas for over 600 years
By that logic should we consider modern America occupied and await a "reconquista" by the Native americans?

You can call it however you want. Christians conquered their former land. S
That is where the name comes from

The US is in fact Occupied territory

yes.
Muslims are a bunch of inbred retarded fucks

the mentality fostered by it led directly to colonizing which led directly to me. Literally Spain's greatest achievement. It did what Greece couldn't

No but it was pretty cool

Yes, but the count of Portugal breaking from Castille was not, and Castille was the one to truly fight whilst Aragon just annexed it

Castile broke out from Leon. The same thing that Portugal did. Portugal was part of the kingdom of Leon not the county of Castile

M8 Andalusia had split long before then

What are you even talkong about?

Yes. If nothing else, it was justified by map aesthethics.

Does that last little bit of Al-Andalus (the bit in the c. 1300 pic) still have cultural influence on that region today? Are there still remnants of arab culture/architecture/ethnic groups or is pretty much spanish?

>Al-Andalus
Never existed. You should read more on the subject. It was the emirate of Granada. A vassal state to the king of Castile and the only thing left are some buildings

Oh, sorry. So they "spain-ified" it all then? Any good reading recommendations?

>architecture
Yes.
>culture
The occasional dish.
>ethnic groups
Well, they're a bit browner. They still speak Castillan, though.

>Well, they're a bit browner. They still speak Castillan, though.
They have the lowest north african admixture in the country
They hispanized every territory that they conquered.What do you want to read? The emirate of Cordoba,the caliphate of Cordoba, the taifas,the Almoravids,the second Taifas,the Almohades,the third Taifas or the Emirate of Granada?

Well, I really enjoyed the El Cid campaign in Age of Empires 2 (which seems to be relatively "accurate") so almoravids/taifa of zaragoza/that sort of thing

>Well, I really enjoyed the El Cid campaign in Age of Empires 2 (which seems to be relatively "accurate") so almoravids/taifa of zaragoza/that sort of thing
Do you want direct sources (poems and taless from the time) or historical books?

It was as justified as the initial Inslamic Conquest.

historical books probably

I'll disagree unless you bring some convincing arguments to the table.

A history of medieval Spain and the world of el Cid are a good start

It's really kind of irrelevant, the Muslims invaded like many other groups did and gradually got thrown out. Justification didn't defeat Islam, centuries of war did, so it doesn't really matter if it was justified or not, it happened.

But, yes it was. Someone invades you, you fight them off, no matter how long it takes.

Well, both were unjustified expansionist aggressions against a weaker neighbor.
> But they were liberating their land
1) The Christian dynasties in the North had nothing to do with the land to the South, it wasn't "their" land to begin with. Oh, and don't forget the ruling class itself was a descendant of the Germanic invaders from 300 years before.
2) There is a time limit after which "liberating" doesn't make sense anymore. Land changes owners all the time, if you want to say that whoever owned the land 500 years ago has any rights on it, then we should just revert to picrel.
> But they were liberating their fellow Christians
1) Their fellow Christians didn't need liberation that much to begin with, they were fine under Muslim rule. Not great, but fine.
2) After some time al-Andalusia had substantial Muslim and Jewish population as well, so I guess Muslims were justified to re-reconquer the land back?
3) The initial Islamic conquest was religiously motivated as well, but, for some reason, that doesn't make it legitimate.
> But Spain is a Christian land
It became officially Christian only ~300 years before the invasion, so by the year 1000 al-Andalus has been under Muslim rule longer than it had been under Christian rule before.

I'm not saying Reconquista was a mistake, or that it was morally wrong. There is nothing wrong with an aggressive expansionism, this is how history works. What I'm saying is that it wasn't "justified" in any sense and isn't superior to other conquests morally or otherwise.

go back to bed LARPER.

>itself was a descendant of the Germanic invaders from 300 years before.
First of all the Romans let the Visigoths to settle in Spain.Second of all the Jimena and Borgoña dynasties were of Navarrean origin
>There is a time limit after which "liberating" doesn't make sense anymore
Arbitraty argument
>Their fellow Christians didn't need liberation
>they were fine under Muslim rule
That is why mozarabes ran away from the southern states?
>After some time al-Andalusia had substantial Muslim and Jewish population as well
Irrelevant
> I guess Muslims were justified to re-reconquer the land
Which muslims? They can claim whatever they want but there is no direct political descendant from the Cordoban caliphate or the taifa kingdoms alive.
>The initial Islamic conquest was religiously motivated as well, but, for some reason, that doesn't make it legitimate.
One was an act of agression.The other one just retaking the land
>It became officially Christian only ~300 years before the invasion, so by the year 1000 al-Andalus has been under Muslim rule longer than it had been under Christian rule before.
There were always more christians than muslims in Spain.Al Andalus is a non existing entity that people that know nothing about th subject like yourself use as a term.The kingdom of Leon is older than any muslim political entity in Spain.So giving Spain only 300 years of christianity, when the kingdom of Leon existed from 714 to the current Spanish is just totally retarded like your whole post.

That's what mexicans are doing right now.

If you ask me it should have stopped somewhere between 1150 and 1300

Why?

Purging sandniggers will always be justified.

Right of conquest justifies it

>justified

spooky

The unified Berber rule only last some 100 to 200 years before they crumbled into 3 major shikdoms and countless local warlords

Conquered and cored with the Imperialism cb

>The unified Berber rule only last some 100 to 200 years before they crumbled into 3 major shikdoms and countless local warlords
Berbers just rulled in 2 different occasions.With the Almoravid and the Almohad dynasty.Those dynasties lasted longer than any Taifa period and the caliphate period

every native american I have ever met is an angry alcoholic mudblood, who cant get out of his own way. Imagine if your ancestors could see you now!

Yes, and it should have continued.

Isn't that exactly what that Mexican movement is about?

>reconquered shitty Iberia but lost based Anatolia

Muslims won in the end

They should have pushed into North Africa and wiped them all out.

...

kek

Cholos and cartel lackeys don't mean much against the National Guard or angry rednecks who have been shooting their entire lives. The Japs were afraid of invading america for precisely these same reasons.

So good luck with your reconquest, esé. You will need it against a country with the 2nd amendment.

Of course not, Iberia under the emirate of Cordoba did far more for the world than Spain has ever done.
At least we have spics and cartels tho amirite?

>Of course not, Iberia under the emirate of Cordoba did far more for the world than Spain has ever done.
Can you tell me 2 things that the emirate of Cordoba ever did?
Please don't just read a wiki article and copy paste it I will spot it pretty fast.You probably don't even know how much time the emirate lasted and probably think that it was the same political entity from 711 to 1492

>not great, but fine
Muslim apologists, folks

Poetic justice desu

t. Mahmud Al-Islami

They are conquering you by breeding not by force.Once they can outvote you they will do whatever they want

>the only way to create a nation is through violence

A nation is created through genes and memes. A state is created through the establishment of a monopoly on violence.

>A state is created through the establishment of a monopoly on violence.
it doesn't have to be.

How else is it done? Asking permission from the current holders of the monopoly of force?

not that user but you could potentially just declare yourself an independent state without any violence, does recognition by other states matter? if it does, good luck crafting a state without violence unless the state that is losing the territory is exceptionally nice

>yes. This is how you solve the "YOU STOLE OUR LAND" that native American and Palestine supporters cry about all the time.
>You feel someone forcefully your land unjustly? Then take it back
>Palestinians does exactly this
>American media: hurr durr muzlums

Too bad Spanish monarchs had too much ambition for ruling the entire world so they lost it all and became a backwater. They were some of the richest in the world, but they never developed their infrastructure to support a larger population like England.

I agree with you, very red-pilled argument, ultimately all justifications can be a bit flimsy unless you have clear evidence that the majority of the local population overwhelmingly prefers your regime. In that case, you can say annexation is perfectly justified if you can achieve it.

Should one be glad that Spain is Christian and Western instead of Muslim today? Yeah, probably.

Leon dates from the 10th century, when the King of Asturias gave the region to his kids. The Emirate of Cordoba was established in the 8th century. To say that the Kingdom of Leon predates any Muslim political entity in Spain is objectively false. The earliest date for the beginning of the Reconquista is 722, with the Battle of Covadonga, but even that isn't a victory so much as being saved from defeat. Had the Asturians lost, basically all of Spain would have been Muslim.

Also, you can hardly say the original conquest was an act of aggression when the common story is that the Muslims were a mercenary army invited in by a Christian to get revenge/retake his throne.

The kingdom of Leon and the kingdom of Asturias are the same thing.They just moved the capital to Leon.The foundation of the modern Spanish states dates back to the gothic kingdom of Asturias/Leon.
>The Emirate of Cordoba was established in the 8th century
And was death by 10th century
>but even that isn't a victory.Had the Asturians lost, basically all of Spain would have been Muslim.
Sure thing
>you can hardly say the original conquest was an act of aggression
How is invading a country through force not an act of agression?

>I agree with you, very red-pilled argument, ultimately all justifications can be a bit flimsy unless you have clear evidence that the majority of the local population overwhelmingly prefers your regime. In that case, you can say annexation is perfectly justified if you can achieve it.
You are trying to justify it by modern standards.Religious conquest was totallyy acceptable back then in the eyes of both Christians and Muslims

Godos fuera!

History is written by winners.

>we
What? All two dozen of you? Or are you CHI

BTFO

>A history of medieval Spain

written by?

Joseph F. O'Callaghan. It covers a lot of things from the fith century to fifteenth century

I'm Diné.

Saracen detected

>Joseph F. O'Callaghan
too bad I'm not able to find a download link for it.

thanks, either way

The Caliphate of Cordoba, which was essentially the Emirate but with more power and a better title, lasted until the 11th Century. After that was the first taifa period. The point was that your claim that "the Kingdom of Leon is older than any Muslim political entity in Spain is objectively false. Whether Spain has spent more time under Christians or Muslims is hard to determine because the region wasn't entirely one of the other for most of the Reconquista.

The original conquest wasn't an act of aggression because it wasn't really intended to be an invasion. The most common accounts say that it was either a Berber prince getting involved in Visigothic politics or a raid that ended up being ridiculously successful. To call it an "act of aggression" makes it sound like a bunch of Muslims decided to invade the Iberian peninsula just because it was there.

>the foundation of the modern Spanish states dates back to the gothic kingdom of Asturias/Leon
The foundation of the modern Spanish state dates back, at best, to 722. The Visigothic kingdoms before that may have occupied the same area as Spain does today, but they aren't Spain. It's hard to say that even Asturias is Spain before the 9th century, when the legend of Santiago Matamoros began to take hold.

>Implies Wasconia or Pamplona had been subsumed by Asturias

No, but it would be unjust to resist reconquista.

Might doesn't make right but when you are surrounded by belligerent warlords it isn't really relevant.

The balance of power had shifted in favor of christendom and preventing reconquista was a lost cause. Were you a merchant in Cordoba you would be better off protecting your assets and preparing for the transition to converso then pass yourself off as Castilian. Teach your kids Castilian and rub out some of your family history so they can move up in life. That would be the übermensch thing to do.

And the former occupants died of starvation and disease.

hmm i do remember how the Christians treated there new Muslim and jewish subjects with respect. which why Spain is such a big hotspot of religious diversi-

Are there any Basque and Guanche polytheists left?

>The Caliphate of Cordoba, which was essentially the Emirate but with more power and a better title, lasted until the 11th Century
The emirate of Cordoba was founded on 729 and its last sucessors (the first taifas) ended in 1080. After that all the muslim part was rulled by foreign dynasties . The neo gothic kingdom of Asturias that mutated into the Kingdom of Leon,the crown of Castile and the current kingdom of Spain was created in 722 and it still exists. No muslim country has a valid claim on Spain
>Asturias is Spain before the 9th century, when the legend of Santiago Matamoros began to take hold.
What? This is just nonesense. Either way the kingdom of Asturias is the sucessor of the kingdom of Toledo as they stablished the Gothic law and was founded by Visigoths and the local mountain clans
>Implies Wasconia
Never existed. In fact Basques founded the kingdom of Castile
> or Pamplona
It was splitted in 3 kingdoms. Which one are you talking about?

You now that the Almoravids expelled all the christians and jews from all their lands and most fleeded to Leon which gave a huge population boost to the country. Goatfuckers and their victimism is unreal desu

Does empire require justification?

The Muslim and Christian parts were ruled by "foreign dynasties", the Muslims by Arabs and Berbers and the Christians by Visigoths. The Visigothic kings were no more ''Spanish" the local taifas. Saying that Spain began in 722 is like saying Germany began in 843. The Kings had more in common with the men who sacked Rome than with the Catholic Monarchs. They also lacked basically all the cultural elements that make Spain what it is. They were hardly even Catholic at the time of the invasion. The Kingdom of Asturias is loosely the successor to the Kingdom of Toledo (if you ignore the actual Muslim rulers of Toledo during that time) and Castile was sort of a successor to Asturias, just like Portugal, but there are plenty of usurpations and false claims to various thrones, so it's way too much of a stretch to link Castile to the Visigoths as directly as you want to. Technically, the Catholic Monarchs weren't real successors to the Kingdom of Castile, because Juana la Beltraneja should have been Queen. Now add nearly 8 centuries of intrigue like that, and it's hard to see the Gothic Kingdoms as similar to modern Spain. I use the beginning of the Santiago Matamoros legend as the date because that's when the Reconquista became the Reconquista. Before that, it was just medieval kingdoms fighting. And nowhere did I say that some Muslim country has a claim on Spain. I just don't think Spain has existed for as long as you claim.

>Basques founded the Kingdom of Castile
You literally just said it was a mutation of the Gothic kingdoms. Which one is it?

>The Muslim and Christian parts were ruled by "foreign dynasties", the Muslims by Arabs and Berbers and the Christians by Visigoths.
False the current dynasties origins come from Navarra. And as I said again the Visigoths inherited the country didn't occupy it by force unlike the muslims.
The Umayyads could be considered a local dynasty. The Almohades and Almoravids were just a colonial force
>Saying that Spain began in 722 is like saying Germany began in 843. The Kings had more in common with the men who sacked Rome than with the Catholic Monarchs
Pelayo is the ancestor of all the kings of Spain pal
>The Kings had more in common with the men who sacked Rome than with the Catholic Monarchs
They are the same dynasty.
>They also lacked basically all the cultural elements that make Spain what it is.
They spoke a Romance language that was pretty close to Galician and a Roman language that was old Castillian and they were catholics. Pretty much the origins of Spain
>They were hardly even Catholic at the time of the invasion
Most Aryans converted to Islam as it made semse theologically and politically. The kingdom of Asturias was 100% Catholic
>The Kingdom of Asturias is loosely the successor to the Kingdom of Toledo (if you ignore the actual Muslim rulers of Toledo during that time)
True
>And Castile was sort of a successor to Asturias
Wroooong. Castile was founded by Basques and Cantabrians and didn't use neo-gothic law. They didn't even have feudalism per say. The descendent of the kingdom of Asturias is Toledo
>it's way too much of a stretch to link Castile to the Visigoths.
No one links Castile to the Visigoths. Leon was the one tied with the Visigoths and when the final union of Castile and Leon happened Leon's political structure became the dominant one while Castillian culture and military became their main contribution to the kingdom
1/2

2/2
>Technically, the Catholic Monarchs weren't real successors to the Kingdom of Castile, because Juana la Beltraneja should have been Queen.
Wroooong Enrique named Isabel his succesor.
>You literally just said it was a mutation of the Gothic kingdoms. Which one is it?
Leon is a mutation from the Gothic kingdom. When Leon and Castile reunited the neo-Gothic law(Leon's law ) was stablished as the default law of the kingdom excluding the places with local fueros. That is why the South of Spain hadca very similar political structure as Leon while the old kingdom of Castile was formed by tiny republics called Behetrias which was the Basque model of rulling

yes

Are the post-modernist right when the point out that all moral is relative and that we, sitting here 800 years into the future, and debating if the reconquista was morally justified is quite silly?

Hahah my fellow gentle sir, i too play europa unviersalis 4, i'm going to take monty pythno and plaster it with flags now, bye!