The 'Reconquista': Historical Myth or Semantic Reality? An Expert Dismantles the Concept

Historian José Luis Corral questions the term coined in the 19th century to describe centuries of conflicts in the Iberian Peninsula.

The history of Spain is full of stories that are part of our collective imagination. One of the most deeply rooted is, without a doubt, that of Reconquestthat period of almost eight centuries in which, supposedly, the Christian kingdoms fought to recover the Iberian Peninsula from Muslim hands. However, a renowned expert in Medieval History, Jose Luis Corralprofessor and historian, has shed light on this concept, dismantling its historical and semantic validity in a recent radio intervention.

Corral, in his visit to COPE's 'Poniendo las Calles' program with Carlos Moreno 'El Pulpo', was categorical: the term Reconquest does not adjust to the historical reality of the events that occurred in the Iberian Peninsula between the 8th and 15th centuries. His argument is based on two fundamental pillars: the etymology of the word and the historical context in which it was coined.

Far from what many might think, the term Reconquest was not born in the Middle Ages, but was coined and popularized in the middle 19th century. The historian Modesto de la Fuente is noted as one of the main promoters of this name. Professor Corral has emphasized that, during the centuries in which this “recovery” supposedly took place, the word was non-existent in the lexicon of the time. “In the Middle Ages, in the wars between Christians and Christians, Christians and Muslims, and Muslims and Muslims, the term Reconquista was never, ever, never used,” he stated bluntly.

The professor has taken the opportunity to highlight an uncomfortable but fundamental truth: history often becomes an ideological weapon. Power, in its different manifestations, has used and manipulates historical accounts for its own purposes, forcing or mixing concepts to build convenient narratives. A clear example of this manipulation, according to Corral, is the anachronistic use of the word “nation” to refer to periods such as the 14th or 15th centuries, when the modern concept of nation did not yet exist. Similarly, the term Reconquest has been loaded with connotations political and ideological that distort their real meaning over time.

José Luis Corral's main objection to the use of the term Reconquest lies in its own nature semantics. The logic is implacable: you cannot reconquer what you have never possessed or have not previously lost. The historian presents a compelling example: the Aragonese of Alfonso I the Battler did not “reconquer” Zaragoza, simply because the Aragonese kingdoms had never lost the city. Therefore, the action cannot be classified as a “re-conquest.”

Following this line of argument, the professor has pointed out that it is not necessary to affirm that Ferdinand III “reconquered” Andalusian cities such as Córdoba or Seville. The reason is simple: when the Muslims occupied these cities at the beginning of the 8th century, the kingdom of Castile, as we know it in later times, simply did not exist. The perspective from which the story is told is crucial, and the ideological load can radically alter the interpretation of events.

The expert has illustrated this idea with a contemporary example: the war against Napoleonic troops. While in Spain it is known as the War of IndependenceThe English call it the “Peninsular War” and the French call it the “Spanish War.” Each denomination reflects a national perspective and a particular interest, demonstrating how the same historical facts can be interpreted in diametrically opposite ways.

In short, what really happened in the Iberian Peninsula during those centuries was not a Reconquest in the literal sense of the word. It was, rather, a series of conquests of territories by various Christian kings and monarchs over Muslim domains. Despite the lack of historical and semantic rigor of the term, the word Reconquest has managed to take root deeply in the Spanish collective imagination, demonstrating the power of historical narratives to shape the perception of reality.

Frequently Asked Questions about the 'Reconquista'

When was the term 'Reconquista' coined?: The term 'Reconquista' was coined and popularized in the 19th centurynot during the Middle Ages.
Did medieval historians use the term 'Reconquista'?: No, according to Professor Corral, the term 'Reconquista' never used during the Middle Ages to describe the conflicts of the time.
Why does historian José Luis Corral question the term 'Reconquista'?: Question the term for reasons semantics (you cannot regain what has not been previously lost or possessed) and due to its origin in the 19th centuryloaded with ideological connotations.
What does Corral argue about the conquest of Zaragoza by Alfonso I the Battler?: He argues that it was not a 'reconquest' because the Aragonese kingdoms they had never lost Zaragoza previously.
Why is the taking of Córdoba and Seville by Ferdinand III not considered a 'reconquest'?: Because in the 8th century, when the Muslims occupied these cities, the kingdom of Castile did not exist as such.
How can the historical process be better described instead of 'Reconquista'?: It can be described as a conquest of territories by Christian kings over Muslim domains.
Why can history be considered an “ideological weapon”?: Because power can force or mix concepts to construct narratives that serve their interests.
What example is given about the ideological interpretation of the same event?: The War of Independence in Spain, called “Peninsular War” by the English and “Spanish War” by the French.
Has the term 'Reconquista' been successful despite its lack of rigour?: Yes, despite lacking historical rigor, it has been settled in the collective imagination.
Where can I find more information about history and current debates?: We invite you to join our community on Telegram to discuss and discover more: https://t.me/casino_gurus