Explain Why the Arab Invasions of 710 and 711 Were So Successful.

Explain why the Arab invasions of 710 and 711 were so successful.

In answering this question we must first appreciate the difficulty historians face in discovering the real truth of the early Arab invasions, a fact well demonstrated in the varying estimates of Arab invasion forces (ranging from 1,700-9000 in current publications). Scant contemporary evidence exists beyond a short narrative present in a Spanish chronicle of 754, a vital surviving Islamic administrative document of the time, and some archaeological remains. Our knowledge of the invasions is largely founded on the works of later Islamic historians, the Ajbar Machmua text for example and the works of Ibn Idhari and al Maqqari. Unfortunately there are fewer Christian documents available. Julian's Ð''History of Wamba' is one of few Visigothic texts to be found, further information has therefore been gained from later monastic chroniclers.

For religious Muslim contemporary's the success of the 711 invasion was attributed to the will of Allah as part of Islam's rapid expansion. Likewise for the Christian author of the 9th century chronicle of Alfonso III the Visigoths' defeat had been punishment for disobeying God's commandments. To the majority of medieval men divine intervention was a valid explanation for occurrences, however even then secular minded writers appreciated more practical explanations; principally the unrest which existed within the Visigothic kingdom. The political and social problems which faced Iberia at the time are seen by many modern historians as vital to the conquest's success.

In 710, supposedly the year of the first major Muslim incursion into Spain under Tarif (whether Tarif's raid even occurred is disputed by some historians ) the new King Roderic succeeded the throne. He was in a vulnerable position from the outset as controversy existed over his succession. It was argued that he had apparently usurped the throne from the rightful heir Akhila son of the old King Wittiza. Although Visigoth royal succession was theoretically elective it was in practice through primogenitor which naturally undermined Roderic's position. The existence of a rival claimant caused dangerous divisions throughout the kingdom and in Akhila's demesne land of Tarragona and Narbonne coins were minted without the king's image, a clear measure of defiance. It is also reported in some sources that during the invasion Akhila conspired with the Arabs to depose Roderic. Some go as far as to say that during the final battle a wing of Roderic's army loyal to Akhila turned on him in the midst of the fighting. Whether this is true can hardly be proven but something catastrophic must have happened for the King's army supposedly far larger than Tarik's (Estimates 24,000-30,000 ) to suffer such a devastating defeat. Many historians support the idea that elements within the Visigothic nobility gave assistance to the invaders probably as a means of removing Roderic. It is unlikely however that they foresaw the long term implications of the invasion and the extension of Muslim presence in Iberia.

It is argued that as well as the problems the succession dispute posed, the very fabric of Visigothic society itself was weak. It is suggested that the Visgothic nobility of the time, who had placed themselves above the native Hispano-Roman population in terms of rights and privileges, were suffering a backlash from the lower sections of society. Incidents of rebellion had increased as had the number of slaves deserting their Lords. Many runaways turned to outlawry and as a consequence there was a rise in crime. It is therefore possible that the large, oppressed lower segments of society offered little resistance to the Muslim invaders. The same can be said for the considerable Jewish community in Spain who had suffered severe persecution under the Visigoth Kings. Jews were banned from many areas of trade which was the lifeblood of their community. Through their links with the Jewish settlements in North Africa they must have been aware that their brethren were afforded far better treatment under Islam. This could have encouraged co-operation with the Arab invaders.

The question of to what degree the Visigoth Kingdom was centralised is another important subject of debate relevant to the success of the invasions. Some historians argue that the Visigothic Kings inherited and maintained Roman order which made for a united Spanish state. Visigothic rulers followed the idea of Ð''Romanitas' trying to emulate their predecessors for example issuing codes of law in Latin modelled on Roman law, maintaining Roman practices of administration, minting coins in the style of emperors and restoring Roman architecture. It is argued that when the King at the head of this well ordered, well-governed kingdom was killed in battle it dealt a decisive blow. This theory is rationalised with comparisons to the organised polities of Egypt and Persia which fell so quickly to Muslim invasion. Nevertheless historians arguing that in 711 Spain was a well ordered, well governed centralised state seem to ignore evidence which suggests considerable political and social unrest.

As opposed to centralised government it is far more likely that greater control lay in the localities. Local landed magnates were of greater relevance to the common people than the King in Toledo. This apparent importance of local government was very beneficial to the Muslim invaders as it enabled them to strike deals with regional Lords. A surviving Islamic administrative document of the time shows an agreement made with Lord Theodemir in the Alicante region confirming his lordship and allowing the safe worship of Christianity. In return he was not to give aid to deserters or enemies of the conquerors and was obliged to pay an annual poll tax in money and kind. Contracts such as this demonstrated