Medieval History professor José Luis Corral argues that Fernando III the Saint did not reconquer Seville because the city was never Castilian before the Muslim invasion.
Medieval History professor José Luis Corral has reopened the debate on the term Reconquista by applying it to the capture of Seville and Córdoba by Fernando III the Saint. In a radio intervention, the historian and historical novelist argued that labelling the expansion of Christian kingdoms over Al-Ándalus as a reconquest is a conceptual error, as it implies recovering a territory that never belonged to those kingdoms.
Corral focused his analysis on the figure of Fernando III, king of Castile and León, who incorporated Córdoba in 1236 and Seville in 1248. "What Fernando III the Saint did with Córdoba and Seville was not reconquest, because Córdoba and Seville had never been Castilian cities," he stated. The medievalist recalled that when the Muslims occupied these cities in the early 8th century, the kingdom of Castile did not even exist.
For the professor, the most accurate expression to describe those events is "conquest of Muslim land by Christian monarchs." This interpretation, he explained, avoids projecting national concepts that emerged centuries later onto the Middle Ages, which distort the political reality of each era.
The historian also referred to the example of Zaragoza to reinforce his thesis. The city, which was part of the Visigothic kingdom before the Muslim arrival, was conquered by Alfonso I the Battler in 1118. However, Corral rejected the notion that this campaign can be defined as a Aragonese reconquest. "The Aragonese of Alfonso I the Battler did not reconquer Zaragoza, because they had never lost Zaragoza. Zaragoza was a Visigothic city that was conquered by the Muslims. What the Aragonese did was conquer Zaragoza," he added.
The debate over the term Reconquista is not new among specialists. While some historians maintain it as a useful label to explain a prolonged process over centuries, others believe it oversimplifies a reality marked by alliances, wars, pacts, and changes of borders between Christian and Muslim powers.
Corral's statements once again highlight the importance of historical language. For the professor, using precise terms does not deny military facts or the expansion of Christian kingdoms, but rather describes them without attributing a political continuity that, he argues, did not exist.
In the context of Seville, the reflection invites a review of how the conquest of the city in 1248 is explained in textbooks and in public discourse. The figure of Fernando III, canonized by the Catholic Church, remains a historical reference in the city, which dedicated the cathedral and numerous streets to him. However, Corral's proposal raises the question of whether his feat should be narrated as a reconquest or as a conquest within the territorial expansion of the Crown of Castile.
The historian, known for his historical novels such as "The Golden Hall" or "The Prisoner of Rome," has been defending this position in academic and outreach forums for years. His most recent intervention has reignited the debate on social media and among history enthusiasts, who are divided between those who defend the traditional use of the term and those who advocate for a critical revision.
For readers interested in delving deeper into this issue, Corral recommends consulting primary sources and academic studies that address the complexity of relations between Christians and Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula, avoiding teleological views that look at the past with present eyes.
You may also like
