King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella (los Reyes Católicos)

[Bast]

I thought we could talk about these two. I think it's an important yet tragic chapter in history. I don't know how to judge Isabella. Sure she reunited and reconquered the country and started Spain onwards to the country we know today and discovered the New World which was inevitable. But then again the expulsion of the Jews and Moors and the Inquisition all happened during her reign.

What do you guys think?

Also, interestingly, I've read that Ferdinand had Jewish ancestry. Does anyone know anything about this? The irony of it if it were true.

 

[Bast]

A few notes:

Isabella and Ferdinand proceeded with their plans to unify all of Spain by continuing a long-standing but stalled effort to expel the Moors (Muslims) who held parts of Spain. In 1492, the Muslim Kingdom of Granada fell to Isabella and Ferdinand, thus completing the Reconquista. That same year, all Jews in Spain who refused to convert to Christianity were expelled by royal edict.

Also in 1492, Isabella was convinced by Christopher Columbus to sponsor his voyage of discovery. The lasting effects of this were many: by the traditions of the time, when Columbus discovered lands in the New World, they were given to Castile. Isabella took a special interest in the Native Americans of the new lands; when some were brought back to Spain as slaves she insisted they be returned and freed, and her will expressed her wish that the "Indians" be treated with justice and fairness.

Isabella was also a patron of scholars and artists, establishing educational institutions and building a large collection of art works. She learned Latin as an adult, was widely read, and educated not only her sons but her daughters.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

In fact expulsion of the moors was much later. After Granada conquest in 1942 the muslims there were allowed to remain muslims, however in 1502 they were forced to convert or leave the same as the jews, most converted but only de iure, de facto they remained muslims also know as moriscos (meaning moor-like). However in next years, after catholics kings death, more resrtictive laws about the moriscos were passed in order to eliminate muslim cultural elements as arabic language, muslim dresses, names, etc. Finally in the last years of the 16th century moriscos revolted in the Alpujarra (some mountains in Granada) several times and they were definitively expelled from Spain in 1610 by Felipe III.

 

[Tee Kay]

I think Isabella is a great leader in uniting Spain under Christianity and making it into a superpower. But her ethnic clensing program against Jews and Muslims should not be mimicked by others.

 

[sydhe]

Ferdinand and Isabella were both very capable. Ferdinand was very successful after Isabella died as King of Aragon and Regent of Castile (due to their daughter Juana's madness). Technically the two crowns weren't united until Ferdinand died in 1516, although for all practical purposes, they were united well before that. Spanish Navarre was united with Castile in 1513 so officially became part of Spain in 1516. There was also a French portion of Navarre whose king Henry III became Henry IV of France, and which officially became part of France in 1620.

One of the odd things about the union of Aragon and Castile was that Castile tended to be oriented toward the Atlantic while Aragon was more oriented toward the Mediterranean, in particular Italy.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Indeed. That is evident in architecture too. Since Castile (currently most of Spain) was influenced mainly by France and northern atlantic Europe you can find lots of gothic buildings there, OTOH, in Aragon (Aragon, Valencia, Cataluña), there are very few gothic buildings, the same as in Italy.

 

[innonimatu]

The Iberian Peninsula was not naturally (and is not) one political entity, therefore modern Spain was by no means "reunited and reconquered". There was nothing to reunite to start with (the visigothic rule over the whole peninsula was a short-lived oddity). The term Spain was not even used at the time.

The crowns of Castile and Aragon were not formally united at the time of the catholic kings. In fact there was a large rebellion in Catalonia against rule from Madrid (whith did not exist aroud 1500) as late as 1640, and the assemblies of Catalonia, Valencia, and Aragon (the crown of Aragon was a "triple crown") kept many of their powers their powers (most importantly over taxes and finances) until their dissolution in 1714. Administration was separate for Castile and for Aragon - all administration: laws, tribunals, taxes, coinage, customs, even participation in overseas colonialism (activity in the american colonies was reserved for citizens of Castile only).
The assemblies of the Kingdom of Aragon even managed to block the inquisition for a few years, aware that was the tool the "catholic" kings had devised to exercise their power over all their holdings. The first chief inquisitor was murdered in the cathedral of Saragossa, being (rightly) seen as a tool of the "catholic" kings, which they would use to strengthen their power by the exercise of terror.

Ferdinand and Isabella do merit the credit for destroying the power of the military orders, the church and the nobles and the guilds, submitting them all to the crown. Only the assemblies (cortes/corts) endured, and these could be eventually pressured into compliance with the crown's wishes. The Inquisition was instrumental to achieve all this. The way they went about doing this in interesting, as the monarchs had little power against the array of opponents they started with. The greatest challenge to the power of the monarchs came from the church. The military-religious orders were a state within the state. The church itself was the biggest landholder, and richer than the crown. Any frontal attack against this was doomed to failure. So they attacked the church in the one place were it was vulnerable: outside the Iberian Peninsula, in Rome. The popes of the time were concerned, above all, with their petty italian wars, and control over central Italy. Aragon held southern Italy and could provide critical support (or totally undermine) the pope in Italy. So they extracted directly from the pope concessions that allowed the monarchs to appoint many of the top figures of the church in their kingdoms (and all appointments in the new world). They got the pope to grant the crown a large part of the recipes of the church. But their master stroke was forcing the pope to place the local inquisition under the sole authority of the crown. The church would exercise no control whatsoever over the inquisition. The inquisition could strike at any person, regardless of status (Torquemada, the first chief inquisitor of Castile, took the opportunity to attack his personal enemy, Pedro de Aranda, bishop of Calahorra) and kept all of the most important nobles in the kingdom under (conspicuous) surveillance. Thus it is not strange that they dared not show active resistance against the centralizing policies of the crown that gradually stripped their ancient privileges.

As for Ferdinand being a “converso”, there are allegations that his grandmother (officially, Mariana Ayala de Córdoba) was one. I don’t think there is any proof, and the genealogical trees (might have been forged) do not lead to believe the allegations.
Still, he should have given that fanatical ***** of his wife a good beating and followed the previous policy of protecting the religious minorities. But he knew very well how useful the Inquisition was, and she was the queen of Castille…

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Wow biased vision of history if i have ever seen any. Are you some sort of Catalonian separatist casually?

The Iberian Peninsula was not naturally (and is not) one political entity,

It IS a politically entity like it or not. If naturally or not that depends of the POW. Most people thinks it is.

therefore modern Spain was by no means "reunited and reconquered". There was nothing to reunite to start with (the visigothic rule over the whole peninsula was a short-lived oddity).

So you call 400 years a short live oddity. In any case you are contradicting yourself since Spain unity predates Spain desunity. And BTW Spain unity comes from more ancient times, at least the Roman understood it that way since there was ONE province called Hispania, you know. In any case i would say Spain is more naturally united than many European countries.

The term Spain was not even used at the time.

Wrong. The term Spain is used since the early 14th century, if you dont want to take Hispania the same as Spain of course.

The crowns of Castile and Aragon were not formally united at the time of the catholic kings. In fact there was a large rebellion in Catalonia against rule from Madrid (whith did not exist aroud 1500)

The capital was in Toledo so i fail to see how is the "non existence" of Madrid in the 1500 of any relevance here? BTW Madrid existed in the 1500 but was a minor town.

and the assemblies of Catalonia, Valencia, and Aragon (the crown of Aragon was a "triple crown")

I have heard of the kingdom of Valencia (under the control of Aragon) and the kingdom f Aragon itself of course, but never heard about the kingdom of Catalonia.

kept many of their powers their powers (most importantly over taxes and finances) until their dissolution in 1714. Administration was separate for Castile and for Aragon - all administration: laws, tribunals, taxes, coinage, customs, even participation in overseas colonialism (activity in the american colonies was reserved for citizens of Castile only).

Wrong. Castles and taxes in both kingdoms were all under Isabel´s authority.

The assemblies of the Kingdom of Aragon even managed to block the inquisition for a few years, aware that was the tool the "catholic" kings had devised to exercise their power over all their holdings. The first chief inquisitor was murdered in the cathedral of Saragossa, being (rightly) seen as a tool of the "catholic" kings, which they would use to strengthen their power by the exercise of terror.

"Exercise of terror", too theatrical for my taste. Logically Catholic Kings want to elminate oposition in all HIS territories. Revoltous are prosecuted in all Spain, not only by the inquisition (the kings even created apolicial entity called Santa Hermandad), and specially in Castille, so i fail to se why are you centering specifically in Aragon. Is there a special interest in it?

Ferdinand and Isabella do merit the credit for destroying the power of the military orders, the church and the nobles and the guilds, submitting them all to the crown. Only the assemblies (cortes/corts) endured, and these could be eventually pressured into compliance with the crown's wishes. The Inquisition was instrumental to achieve all this. The way they went about doing this in interesting, as the monarchs had little power against the array of opponents they started with. The greatest challenge to the power of the monarchs came from the church. The military-religious orders were a state within the state. The church itself was the biggest landholder, and richer than the crown. Any frontal attack against this was doomed to failure. So they attacked the church in the one place were it was vulnerable: outside the Iberian Peninsula, in Rome. The popes of the time were concerned, above all, with their petty italian wars, and control over central Italy. Aragon held southern Italy and could provide critical support (or totally undermine) the pope in Italy. So they extracted directly from the pope concessions that allowed the monarchs to appoint many of the top figures of the church in their kingdoms (and all appointments in the new world). They got the pope to grant the crown a large part of the recipes of the church. But their master stroke was forcing the pope to place the local inquisition under the sole authority of the crown. The church would exercise no control whatsoever over the inquisition. The inquisition could strike at any person, regardless of status (Torquemada, the first chief inquisitor of Castile, took the opportunity to attack his personal enemy, Pedro de Aranda, bishop of Calahorra) and kept all of the most important nobles in the kingdom under (conspicuous) surveillance. Thus it is not strange that they dared not show active resistance against the centralizing policies of the crown that gradually stripped their ancient privileges.

Dont see anything wrong here. OTOH it seems that political power for the church and "ancient privileges" (aka feudalism) are cool for you.

As for Ferdinand being a “converso”, there are allegations that his grandmother (officially, Mariana Ayala de Córdoba) was one. I don’t think there is any proof, and the genealogical trees (might have been forged) do not lead to believe the allegations.
Still, he should have given that fanatical ***** of his wife a good beating and followed the previous policy of protecting the religious minorities. But he knew very well how useful the Inquisition was, and she was the queen of Castille…

So he was as responsible as Isabel.

 

[Varsul]

The inquisition was part of the power play that united Spain had to play. They needed to gain the support of the Pope. I think that innonimatu also points out this. There were reciprocal advantages for both Spain and the Church. Each was helping out the other. There is a good book that goes into some detail about this period- "Empire" subtitled "how Spain became a World Power" by Henry Kamen. His basic premise in this book is that Spain"s power was derived by a coalition of forces including the church and the banking powers of Venice and Genoa. The marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella was really the catylist though. If you rate the success of a ruler by how they increase the power of their country then this couple was quite phenominal.

On a different note I think it is not that good to criticize the religious persecution of the times by our modern standards. People are products of their times to a large extent. Many of the founding fathers of the USA had slaves. At least look at the context of the culture and times. In the future maybe people will look back at the USA and think that the current persecution of immigrants is a terrible crime.

 

[innonimatu]

Wow biased vision of history if i have ever seen any. Are you some sort of Catalonian separatist casually?

It IS a politically entity like it or not. If naturally or not that depends of the POW. Most people thinks it is.

No, I'm currently sitting within that large chunk of the Iberian Peninsula that managed to kick out the spanish king in 1640 and remain independent. I know the spanish sometimes forget we exist, but 10 million people here tend to disagree with you.

So you call 400 years a short live oddity. In any case you are contradicting yourself since Spain unity predates Spain desunity. And BTW Spain unity comes from more ancient times, at least the Roman understood it that way since there was ONE province called Hispania, you know. In any case i would say Spain is more naturally united than many European countries.

No, there were 3 provinces in roman times. And in visigothic times there were two kingdoms (Suevi and Visigoth) for a long time.

Wrong. The term Spain is used since the early 14th century, if you dont want to take Hispania the same as Spain of course.

Hispania was a geographical reference, up to the time when a single monarch managed to rule all Iberian kingdoms and used the term to create the idea of an ancient realm encompassing the whole penninsula. We're still spoiling that plan, aren't we?

The capital was in Toledo so i fail to see how is the "non existence" of Madrid in the 1500 of any relevance here? BTW Madrid existed in the 1500 but was a minor town.

I have heard of the kingdom of Valencia (under the control of Aragon) and the kingdom f Aragon itself of course, but never heard about the kingdom of Catalonia.

Yes, you are right, Madrid was a small town then. And Catalonia was not a kingdom, but a county. Some historians call it one of three crowns (based on the fact that there was one assembly for Catalonia, one for Valencia, and one for Aragon), others speak only of two (the kingdoms of Aragon and Valencia).
The capital of medieval kingdoms was wherever the king decided to seat his court. A few cities housed the royal court for some time. In Castile they might be Seville, Granada or Toledo (perhaps even more cities).

Wrong. Castles and taxes in both kingdoms were all under Isabel´s authority.

Sorry, you’re wrong. Check your facts. In fact Isabella didn’t even ruled Castile to start with, she first had to fight a civil war to get rid of the rightful heir to the throne. Castles she eventually brought under her authority. But not the taxes in Aragon.

"Exercise of terror", too theatral for my taste. Logically Catholic Kings want to elminate oposition in all HIS territories. Revoltous are prosecuted in all Spain, not only by the inquisition (the kings even created apolicial entity called Santa Hermandad), and specially in Castille, so i fail to se why are you centering specifically in Aragon. Is there a special interest in it?

Just pointing out that Aragon was independent enough, even from its own monarch, to successfully resist for a few years the introduction of the Inquisition.

Dont see anything wrong here. OTOH it seems that political power for the church and "ancient privileges" (aka feudalism) are cool for you.

I did not intend to pass judgement on those at all. Only giving a brief explanation about the clever way the catholic kings placed their combined kingdoms under centralized rule. Of course the Inquisition was only part of what they did, but they used it brilliantly. Isabella started out as a weak queen taking over a country that had come out of a short civil war, and owing her throne to the nobles.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

No, I'm currently sitting within that large chunk of the Iberian Peninsula that managed to kick out the spanish king in 1640 and remain independent. I know the spanish sometimes forget we exist, but 10 million people here tend to disagree with you.

Ahhh. I see now. That explains it all.

No, there were 3 provinces in roman times. And in visigothic times there were two kingdoms (Suevi and Visigoth) for a long time.

Nope one province divided later by Augusto into three subterritories. Hispania Ulterior Baetica, Hispania Citerior Tarraconensis e Hispania Ulterior Lusitania. Later they even added the Mauritania Tingitana to the diocese of Hispania. It is not very important however, but i know that you need to identify Portugal with Lusitania, which is really delusional at best.

Hispania was a geographical reference, up to the time when a single monarch managed to rule all Iberian kingdoms and used the term to create the idea of an ancient realm encompassing the whole penninsula.

We're still spoiling that plan, aren't we?

Dont feel so threatened by Spain. Most people here think that Portugal would be an economical charge for Spain and the last thing we need.

Sorry, you’re wrong. Check your facts. In fact Isabella didn’t even ruled Castile to start with, she first had to fight a civil war to get rid of the rightful heir to the throne. Castles she eventually brought under her authority. But not the taxes in Aragon.

Yep. It was stablished in the concordia de Segovia in 1475.

Just pointing out that Aragon was independent enough, even from its own monarch, to successfully resist for a few years the introduction of the Inquisition.

Again, i think that nobles being independient of the monarch is not a good thing.

 

[MCdread]

@Thorgalaeg:
it was the county of Catalonia, hence "la Ciudad Condal".

innonimatu is right: it was only during the Bourbons that Spain became officially one united kingdom. Before that, Olivares made some attempts at suppressing the independences of Aragon and Portugal, and it contributed to the portuguese and catalan revolts of 1640. For example, in the second part of the Quijote, when he travels to Barcelona, there are several hints and references to the different general customs and organization between the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon. I think Cervantes even comments explicitly about each one's nobility and social differences during Quijote and Sancho's stay in the in the castle of the dukes or thereabouts. Also, when Isabella died, some people have said that Ferdinand seemed to have favoured getting a new heir for Aragon, independent of the future inheritance of Charles V, but it was prevented by his own death.

Btw, I don't see much point in that political vs. geographic discussion: until the modern age there isn't much point in discussing political institutions in the sense we do today: for many centuries, no one had any doubts about the cultural or geographic unity of the italians or germans, yet they were fierce political rivals and enemies among themselves. The unified state as a political expression of a nation or a geographic land is relatively recent historically, at least in a mainstream interpretation. Besides, despite the centralizations of the absolutist powers, feudal notions of political and geographical relations weren't fully suppressed until the liberal revolutions. Therefore, we can't really interpret what was happening centuries ago with our own referentials. For example, the early norman kings of England were kings of a major european power, but at the same time they were dukes of normandy. As kings they were at the same level vis-a-vis with the kings of France, but as dukes, they were vassals of the same king of France. Also, during the 100 Years War, the kings of England held large lands in France, but those lands weren't a part of the kingdom of England, but of the kingdom of France. That's why, even today, Guernsey or the Isle of Man are a part of the inherited lands of the kings of England, but don't belong to England. In fact, they aren't even a part of the UK, therefore aren't EU members.
All this to say, that despite the obvious existence of a geographic and cultural unit called Spain, the whole of Iberia, that doesn't mean that at the time, such thing was the preamble for a process of political unification. In the medieval and early modern feudal world that made little sense. I.e., Portugal was a part of Spain, followed the spanish customs, but that didn't mean any unification outside the personal unions that every iberian king dreamed of. In fact, during the middle ages, I think that the navarrese kings were twice kings of all the christian kingdoms, but contrarily to the spanish custom, they followed the frank inspired custom of dividing the realm among their sons.

Again, i think that nobles being independient of the monarch is not a good thing.

On the contrary. It would have been a very good thing for us later on, if the nobles had remained strong and independent towards the ruler during the Middle Ages. That was the reason why in England the Magna Carta was signed, and the liberal parliamentary tradition was born, in sharp contrast with the absolutist ways that derived from centralised unopposed royal rule and later dictatorships inspired in that tradition that we have experienced ad nauseam in this part of Europe...

 

[innonimatu]

Nope one province divided later by Augusto into three subterritories. Hispania Ulterior Baetica, Hispania Citerior Tarraconensis e Hispania Ulterior Lusitania. Later they even added the Mauritania Tingitana to the diocese of Hispania. It is not very important however, but i know that you need to identify Portugal with Lusitania, which is really delusional at best.

That would be delusional, yes. Roman provinces did split the peninsula according to geographic areas, and later kingdoms formed also constrained by geography. That is the only thing in common between then.
But about the roman provinces, I am right to claim the peninsula was split. And that happened since the very beginning of roman conquest, under the republic. The diocese as a working administrative division only came about in the forth century, when Rome’s authority was already beginning to collapse.

Again, i think that nobles being independient of the monarch is not a good thing.

Well, I have to agree with MCdread on that one. The relative independence of nobles was one of the features of the feudal system. That system was unique to Europe at the time, in that under it there were no forms of absolute power (except perhaps the pope, and that on a purely theoretical level). Vassalage was a two-way relationship, involving rights and obligations for both parties. A contract, and even kings were bound by its rules. This laid the base for the later notion of the “rule of the law”.

By the 11th century representative assemblies began to arise throughout the kingdoms of western Europe. In some places they originally represented the interests of the nobles (England), in others that of the cities and towns (iberian kingdoms). Eventually they evolved to represent the various “estates” of medieval society; nobility, townsfolk and clergy. Aragon even had separate representation for wealthier townsfolk and the less wealthy (the poor always get screwed ). The peasants were assumed to be represented by their lords. The catholic church can probably be credited for laying the ground for the creation of these assemblies: they kept the notions of roman law in cannon law, and experimented with electoral methods as early as the 10th century.

But it was the feudal system, more than any notion of a need for a principle of the “rule of the law”, or a desire for representative government, that led to the creation of assemblies. The monarchs constantly needed more money to wage their wars, and they could not simply extort it, because a political system that placed the highest regard in contracts also had to respect private property. So they had to ask for money, and they had to convene assemblies to do it.
Eventually, as kings strengthened their power, they ceased convening assemblies. England was the sole important exception and it certainly benefited from parliamentary democracy, while government in continental Europe languished under absolutism.
But kings could not do away with the idea of representation, that stayed. And would come back with a vengeance in 1789.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Well, I am not advocating for absolutism, of course since a modern POW centralized monarchy means for us absolutism and repression. But indeed it was an improvement in relation with the previous situation. Feudalism and privileges for the nobles only managed to continuous wars among warlords and right of life and death of any landowner about his servants. It was centralized monarchies that made modern countries allowing posterior evolution. But this is way off topic i would say.

 

[brachy-pride]

Something funny, is that an atlantic Spain as Castilla + Portugal could have existed instead of the Castilla + Aragon that happened at the end

Imagine a country not bothered by wars in italy, france or the netherlands, completely dedicated to expansion in the americas and east indies

 

[Bast]

The inquisition was part of the power play that united Spain had to play. They needed to gain the support of the Pope. I think that innonimatu also points out this. There were reciprocal advantages for both Spain and the Church. Each was helping out the other. There is a good book that goes into some detail about this period- "Empire" subtitled "how Spain became a World Power" by Henry Kamen. His basic premise in this book is that Spain"s power was derived by a coalition of forces including the church and the banking powers of Venice and Genoa. The marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella was really the catylist though. If you rate the success of a ruler by how they increase the power of their country then this couple was quite phenominal.

For sure. They have enormous faults but one can also admire their achievements. They single-handedly put Spain on the map. Scratch that, pretty much set her up as the sole World Power.

Apparently Isabella learnt to speak and write Latin as an adult. I don't know if she knew other languages. I don't think so. It's interesting.