madeleine92posts: The union of Castile and Aragon  or Spain? A/N: I have seen many discussions

madeleine92posts:The union of Castile and Aragon  or Spain?A/N: I have seen many discussions touching upon the matter whether we can talk about “kings of Spain” in the Middle Ages and under Isabella and Ferdinand’s reign or not. As I happen to own a book that touches upon this matter rather extensively, I decided to write a post. This is a point of view and an opinion of one of Polish experts in Spanish history. As opposed to the Ancient Age which had ended with the invasion of the barbarian people, anything that dramatic didn’t happen at the end of the Middle Ages. That’s why historians can’t come to an agreement in regards to when such an end took place and when the modern times began exactly. The traditional historiography that bases it off the criterion of dates, ties the beginning of the modern age with the end of 15th century or with the beginning of the 16th century - precisely with Columbus’s discovery that he made in 1492 or with Luther’s speech from 1517. At times the beginning of the modern times is shifted to 1453 - the year when Turks conquered Constantinople. However such a way of periodization is being questioned. Historians believe the phenomena that took place in the four essential spheres of the historical process are more important, namely: the social sphere, the economic sphere, and the political and cultural sphere. In such a context, the transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern times should be located at the second half of the 15th century. This is when there were some kind of capitalistic relations in regards to the European economy and when the social sphere got the sense of autonomy which fueled individualism. It is one of the most important things to know in order to understand the sense of the modern culture and maybe even of the whole European civilization. Individualism served as a base for the renaissance humanism, which according to many was a core of the modern times. In regards to politics, it was a period when the national monarchies were being formed as well as it was the beginning of struggle for hegemony on the old continent.When it comes to Spain, the notion that the reign of The Catholic Monarchs (1474-1516) was an embodiment of the beginning of the modern era in Spain, is pretty commonplace. It’s because the Catholic Monarchs contributed significantly to the integration of different realms and territories which the old Roman Spain had consisted of. Some experts go far beyond it, claiming that the conquest of Granada (1492) as well as the later incorporation of the Kingdom of Navarre (1512) were a culmination of the unification process and a decisive shift in regards to rebuilding the united kingdom of Spain. According to them, only the conscious policy of the Catholic Monarchs created the concept of “Spain” - that hadn’t made any political sense before. According to John Elliott “nobody can deny Ferdinand and Isabella created Spain; the fact that under their reign Spain gets the international sense and (…) the beginning of its existence as a community.” Moreover Julián Marías claims “Spain was the first European nation.” However, in recent years such an evaluation is being questioned often by representatives of newer historiography, according to whom “we can’t talk either about king of Spain or about Spain itself until the Bourbons, namely until the reign of Charles III.” At the same time, the notion that The Catholic Monarchs achieved the national unity is being challenged. José María Carrascal in his book “Spain, the unfinished nation” claims that Spain over the course of its long history hasn’t been able to form itself into a hegemonic nation. In Carrascal’s opinion such “deficit” should be blamed on the period of the Middle Ages when different realms were more occupied with fighting between themselves instead of waging a war against the Arabian occupier. We can see the evolution of such evaluation, looking at the French expert in Spanish history Joseph Pérez, who had called the original, French edition of his famous work “Isabella and Ferdinand. The Catholic Kings of Spain” and changed the title to “Isabella and Ferdinand. The Catholic Kings” in its Spanish edition. The introduction to the edition of his work says: “I hesitated if I should have titled this book Ferdinand and Isabella. The Catholic Kings of Spain or not.” He further explains the reasons of his doubts: “Spain at the end of XV century isn’t anything more but a geographical expression like it was in the case of Italy until the XIX. (…) Namely, Ferdinand and Isabella never were the kings of Spain but the kings of Castile and Aragon. To be precise, we should say they were the kings of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, the earls of Barcelona…”  According to Henry Kamen, English expert in history of modern Spain, the expression “Spain” in XV century made sense only in regards to its geographical sphere and it could be applied to all the people of the Iberian Peninsula such as “Germans” or “Italians” were being applied to the community of “Germans” and “Italians” of that era. In one of his recent books, Kamen puts forward the thesis that Spain had been an empire before it became a nation. Even more, Kamen believes the Spanish empire was created not only by Spaniards, but also by representatives of many different nations: Italians, Flemish, Germans, Native Americans, Chinese. According to him, all of them collaborating one with another, willingly or not, were the true creators of that extraordinary empire. As a matter of fact, The Catholic Monarchs weren’t using the title of “Kings of Spain” like it is in the case of the currently reigning royal couple. The title of  “King and Queen of Castile, León, Aragon, Sicily, Toledo…” was in common use back then.However a bunch of contemporary authors, both foreigners and Spanish ones refer to Isabella and Ferdinand as “The Kings of Spain” and this fact can’t be disputed. Some of them don’t have doubts that Spain already existed in the Middle Ages and it wasn’t only in regards to its geographical sphere.  One of those authors José Antonio Maravall in his work The conception of Spain in The Middle Ages emphasizes the concept of Spain by referring to the former historical, religious and cultural legacy that in the times of the Visigoths had achieved the political unity that was later lost due to the Arabian invasion at the beginnings of the VIII century. In such a sense, as it’s being emphasized by Marvall, the chronicles of the Middle Ages were talking about la España perdida (the lost Spain). Miguel Ángel Ladero Quesada has a similar opinion - even though he is being more skeptical about voicing it - who in his famous synthesis says that “Medieval Spain was one of those geohistorical territories of the European West which clearly stood out, introducing the cultural shadings and some specific aims -  that had been fueled by fights with the islamic invader - a territory that kept ideological elements of the Gothic historical memory - which was referring to the remembrance of the Spanish monarchy under the Visigoths, however its reach shouldn’t be generalized and its true significance shouldn’t be blown out of proportion.”Hence the term “Spain” as well as the first mentions which we are using in order to circumstantiate the sense of perceiving Isabella and Ferdinand as the kings of Spain, needs to be clarified. The problem is the expression of Spain which was commonplace in medieval discourses and documents had two different meanings and they stemmed from the fact that over the course of the reconquista on the Iberian Peninsula, many different realms and territories had been created. In order to express the sense of solidarity and common identity, particularly considering the islamic threat, such expressions as Reges Hispanici, Reges Hispaniae or Regnum Hispaniae were used. However, in order to accent the particular and different things of separate kingdoms, expressions such as las Españas (plural) was consolidated. Given these expressions, it wouldn’t be cautious to try to analyze the foreign policy of Spain on the threshold of the modern age without answering these questions in the first place: Can The Catholic Monarchs be titled as The Kings of Spain? If so, how to precise the spectrum of the expression “Spain” at the end of the XV century? What did “Spain” mean back then, was it a nation in the modern sense of this word? What was the reconquista: a national or maybe regional experience? In this context, the question about the character of the union of Castile and Aragon is essential: was it only a personal union or was it some kind of a determined being when it comes to politics? The relationship of Isabella and Ferdinand is important as well.The term “Spain” as well as the title “King of Spain” weren’t born under the reign of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon. There is a bunch of evidence such as royal documents, chronicles, and different texts that confirm those two terms were in use as early as the Middle Ages. Moreover, they confirm the existence of the national spirit in the medieval sense of this word. There is the wonderful Laudes Hispaniae (The Praise of Spain) written by saint Isidore, (570-636) the bishop of Sevilla which serves as an introduction to his Historia de los godos, vándalos y suevos (History of the Goths, Vandals and Swebs)  - and it’s precisely that author - probably the first Spaniard who was worried because of the relentless fights between the Visigoth kings over the succession - who expressed his understanding of Spain and it’s mission in such words: “Out of all the countries from the West to the Indias, you are the most beautiful, you saint and happy Spain, the mother of rulers and nations. You have the full right to be the Queen of all the provinces because both West and East get the light from you. You are the glory and ornament of the word, the finest part of Earth where the wonderful fertility of the Gothic tribe blossoms in abundance (…)” In the opinion of the Polish researcher of the Gothic history, these words that were spoken with such passion are the manifestation of the attachment to the country, but also the evidence that in the times of Isidore the process of “teriotalization” is to say: abandoning the schema of the thinking that was characteristic for tribes and consolidating the conviction of the unity of Spain had been already pretty advanced.The unique masterpiece Historia Wambae regis Gothorum (History of Wamba, the king of Goths) serves as confirmation of it. It was written by Julian, the bishop of Toledo in the years 680-690. The author supplants the ethnic term gothi with hispani and the political term Regnum gothorum with Hispania. Besides Isidor, Julian was an outstanding intellectualist and politician of the Visigoth times. It’s he who secured the primate dignity for the church in Toledo and was a head of the four synods that took place in the said town. It isn’t surprising then that in the acts from XIV synod, that was gathered in 684, there is a mention of “all the Spanish bishops that are chosen for the whole Spain and Gaul.” For comparison, Egika who was ruling in 687-702 and who was a head of the last, XVII synod (in 694) of the country of Visigoth, uses the expression Hispaniae in order to assess the spread of his territories. However, in the acts from the same synod that were written down by the scribes of the Church, we can find a talk about España y Gaul which terms were used in order to assess the spread of the Visigoth Church. There is a clear difference between the use of term España in the civil sense and the use of the term in the ecclesiastical sense. Julian’s identification of Regnum gothorum and España is full however not only in regards to the legal and public aspect. The bishop of Toledo thought the eschatological context was equally important. Hence according to Julian, populus hispanus was an authentic successor of populus judaicus for which the term “chosen nation” had been reserved. By such comparison, there is no doubt Julian was ultimately identifying populus del reino de España as an essential part of populus christianus.Because of its apocalyptic reference,these ethnic characteristics of the kingdom of Visigoths were to experience in 711 the tempest of the Muslims. As we know, as a result, the kingdom stopped existing and the myth of the lost Spain was born - and over the next centuries it would be the returning call amongst the Christians, at first a very weak one which would become stronger over time. Historians emphasize that out of the Germanic tribes only the Visigoths and Franks - managed to do the ethnic synthesis that was meant to overcame a deficit in regards to the separate awareness amongst the Romanesque and Germanic part of the society.But is it proof of the existence of España visigoda, which would serve as a starting point for the Spanish nationality? Did Visigoths create the Spanish and Gotjic nation? The answer to that question belongs to the group of the most disputed topics in the historiography. It seems that something like “Spain of the Visigoths” existed between 589 - the date when Rekared had proclaimed the Visigoths would convert to Catholicism - and between 711 when the monarchy of Visigoths was destroyed by the Muslims. Visigoths however didn’t manage to create the nation state since their ephemeral monarchy was too weak. As it’s being emphasized by José María Carrascal, “they didn’t have enough time as well as other elements.” It’s a paradox, but in the future, the memory of la España perdida that would last for almost eight centuries and the perception which fueled the legend about the kinship of all the “Spaniards” and the thought about what Spain could have looked like if it hadn’t been for the Arabic invasion - was the true strength of the said monarchy. (monarchy of the Visigoths)According to Julíán Marías this “lost Spain” hadn’t been only a matter of nostalgia, it became  an experience and fueled the motives behind the rebirth of Christian Spain - which meant European Western Spain.”As a matter of fact, la España perdida would fuel the actions of those who would become Spaniards. Those first medieval Spaniards perceived themselves as Christians who were fighting against the non Christian people. Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada (1170?–1247) in his De rebus Hispaniae, uses such words to describe those who were fighting against the Muslims. Their rightful resistance in the Asturian mountains de Rada explains: “they didn’t give up to keep some trace of the term christian as the Muslims took over all Spain.” There is no doubt according to Jiménez de Rada, that the actions of all the realms and territories which they had taken in order to fight the Muslims had a common nominative: Spain. In the second half of the 13th century, there were clear concepts in regards to existence of historical and cultural Spain which can be confirmed by the historic works of Alfonso X The Wise who reigned in Castile in 1252-1284. He inspired La Primera crónica General de España (The first general chronicle of Spain) which was meant to describe fechos d`Espanna (actions of Spain) which were being identified with the legacy of empires that had been ruling the Peninsula since the most ancient and legendary times till the death of king Ferdinand III in 1252. In such context, it wasn’t just about telling the facts from the lives of different rulers but it was about something more. The intention seems to be clear: it was about the defense of the legitimacy of Castilian and Leonese monarchy of which king was at the moment a “staunch guard of the historical memory”, in particular since other kingdoms and lands were placed in the background. The Alfonso X’s chronicle is probably the first source which confirms Castilian aspiration to become the centre around which the whole country should be united. The existence of national spirit that formed the Chronicle can be confirmed by the words he uses in order to describe the language: its’s either “our Castilian language”, “we speak from Castile” or “we call in Spanish language”. It doesn’t mean, however, that only Castilian rulers had political visions and felt responsibility in regards to reconquest of the lost lands. As a proof we need to refer to an outstanding Aragonese ruler, Alfonso I the Warrior/the Battler (1104-1134) to whom Aragon owes its historical shape. It’s him who through the marriage with Urraca I of Castile in 1109 managed to merge two dynasties in the name of formula Monarquía Hispánica that would be achieved later on by The Catholic Monarchs. Castilian historiography emphasizes the role of their ruler - Urraca’s father, Alfonso VI in regards to this project but we can’t deny the Aragonese king had the same concept of  the great monarchy as well. This concept of the great monarchy is being mentioned in different documents from Aragon, León or Asturias - which perceive the marriage of Alfonso and Urraca as the one which ruled in the whole Spain: ego rex Adefonso, tocius Ispanie imperator et ego Urraka, tocius Ispanie imperiatrix.Vicente Palacio Atard emphasizes that “the kingdom of Aragon is the only one which during the Middle Ages before The Catholic Kings’s monarchy was created, had been forming dynastic unions with everyone, showing each of later kingdoms of Spain the spirit of collaboration that others could envy.” Hence, it isn’t a coincidence that the Crown of Aragon would be the model for the monarchy of Isabella and Ferdinand. There is another example that term “Spain” was being used not only in Castile. Namely it’s the chronicle of the Catalan chronicle Ramón Muntanera which was written in Catalan at the beginnings of the 14th century. The author used term “Spain” on multiple occasions, but it’s most essential passage is: “If those four kingdoms that are being called Spain, which they are flesh and blood of, were united in one, then any other kingdom wouldn’t have greater power over this (Spain).” The four kingdoms mentioned by the chronicle are: the kingdoms of Castile and León (united in 1230), Aragon, Navarre and Portugal. Each of them is independent, but Muntaner points out that it they were united they would get the incomparable power across the Christian Europe. Some historians think that the mention of those four kingdoms that are being called “the flesh and blood” (una carn e una sang) and not of the flesh and of blood, is more important than the suggestion mentioned above. It’s the manifestation of strict close-up between two main political organisms of Christian Spain. The existence of the idea of Spain in 14thcentury can be confirmed by two Castilian chronicles. In the first of them, Crónica de veinte reyes (Chronicle of twenty kings) the term “Spain” appears very often. For instance, at the end of multiple chapters such words are being repeated: “we don’t judge any case which doesn’t belong to history of Spain.” It means that even though over the course of the story, concrete places and kingdoms are being mentioned, Spain covers them all. This chronicle also touches upon the matter of Spain which got lost due to the failure of the last Visigoth ruler: “When king Athanagild lost the land, there didn’t miss in the whole Spain the lands of Christians, particularly in Asturias and Old Castile.” Moreover on multiple occasions they are talking about “kings of Spain”, and at times even about the emperor which can be applied to Alfonso VI after he conquered Toledo or about the Primate of Toledo who was the biggest ecclesiastical authority. In Crónica del rey don Pedro I (Chronicle of king Peter I) Pedro López de Ayala uses term “Spains” (plural) when he is talking about Toledo as “the head of all the Spains”The fact Spain in the Middle Ages was something more than just a simple geographical concept can be also confirmed by the words of preamble of the family riches of the Castilian marshal Juan Ramirez de Guzmán from 1460 which says: “the kings of our Spain, the ones who already passed away and these who will come.” There is also a much stronger argument: sources from abroad where the kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula were being called la nación española (the Spanish nation). During the council in Konstanz in 1414 that had been gathered in order to erase the schism in the Western Church, it was said that Christanity which was being identified with Europe, had been formed by five “nations”: Italy, Germany, France, Spain and England. Castile was singled out during the Council out of all the Spanish kingdoms because it was the biggest and the most populous one, and because it had done the most in the defense of Christian faith. “To the popes of 15th century” - according to Luis Suárez – “Castile metamorphosed into the real anchorage.” This historical awareness of Spanish “nation” was clearly expressed by Alfonso de Cartagena, bishop of Burgos, who during the Council in Basel from 1435 recognized the preponderance of the Spanish “nation” over the English one because its monarchy was older than the one of England and the claim of the kings of Castile as the heirs of Visigoths was better.There is a plenty of evidence from 15th century that the term Spain was in use during the reign of Isabella and Ferdinand and that the royal couple was being called kings of Spain.The work of frira Antonio Montesino, the poet and preacher of The Catholic Kings is one of these. In Romance hecho por mandado de la Reina Princesa a la muerte del Principe de Portugal, su marido (Romance that was ordered by the princess Isabella because of the death of the prince of Portugal, her husband) Antonio Montesino calls Isabella and Ferdinand “the great kings of Spain”. On the other hand Juan de Encina in the poem that was written because of the death of prince Juan, calls the deceased one: “the flower and hope of Spain.” Death of Juan was also noted by the chronicle of the era, Pedro  Mártir de Anglería, who after Ferdinand and Isabella’s son’s passing wrote: “all the hope of Spain was buried then.”To sum up: As you can see historians can’t come to an agreement in this matter: some believe Isabella and Ferdinand were kings of “united” Spain, some that they weren’t. It is up to an interpretation, I guess. Also, I didn’t translate parts that would touch upon the matter of Ferdinand and Isabella’s relationship but I had made a post that is kind of an ebodiment of the author’s opinion (x). When it comes to the matter of what kind of union it was, it also depends on a point of view. This author goes with the notion that though it was, indeed, a personal and thus rather fragile union of Castile and Aragon - those two kingdoms were one organism in regards to their foreign policy (Ferdinand was in charge) and international relations. In general, the author believes we can call Isabella and Ferdinand “kings of Spain” as Spain existed long before them (as it is stated in multiple documents) but it wasn’t united - this is the author’s stance.Beta: @ladyoflancaster - thanks, honey!!!Source: “Between war and diplomacy. Ferdinand The Catholic and the foreign policy of Spain in years 1492-1516″ by Filip Kubiaczyk -- source link

More pics about