Time machines do not exist. Unalterable and inelastic, history is confined in a plane unreachable by mankind. The best that we can do is study the relics left behind by the myriad of societies in the past and hope to piece together a semi-coherent series of events. Even after years upon years of vigorous study by multiple historians, there are holes within every story. Sometimes these holes just cannot be filled because artifacts have gone missing, ravaged by the sands of time. In these cases, narratives must be shaped to make sense somehow, and the gaps are bridged with what is believed to have happened. Although there may not be any physical evidence, assumptions are made logically based on preexisting information. However, what if this preexisting information was based on other assumptions? In an endless cycle of speculation, how much can we really know about the past? Without the ability to travel back in time and experience it, historians can only guess at the details of what happened, such is the case in the Islamic conquest of Spain. Few primary sources exist that chronicle this period of time, but many secondary publications are based off of them. This is an indication that much of the information that exists concerning the invasion is more legend than fact, full of added embellishments and exaggerations.
The story generally accepted by historians today begins in the year 711 with the movement of Tariq ibn Ziyad and his forces into the Iberian Peninsula. At the time, the Visigothic empire was extremely weak under the rule of King Roderick, who many believed had usurped the throne from its rightful owner, Akhila, the firstborn son of the previous king. Throughout the kingdom, factions united against King Roderick and were willing to provide their support to any force that opposed him. Tariq exploited these preexisting fundamental divisions between the people of the area, and easily defeated King Roderick’s army in a decisive battle. His original raid is believed to have been only a reconnaissance mission, but its unprecedented success prompted Musa ibn Nusayr, a governor and general of the Umayyad caliphate, to bring reinforcements and continue the invasion. The death of King Roderick in battle left the remaining Visigoths quite disorganized and without a leader, essentially a power vacuum. Musa ibn Nusayr took advantage and turned the invasion northward. He met little resistance, and the majority of the Iberian Peninsula quickly came under Umayyad rule and became known as al-Andalus. This is the story deduced from the few primary sources that exist, and much of it may not be entirely true.
Ironically, most of the information that is known about the Islamic conquest of Spain comes from a Christian account called the Chronicle of 754. Originally written in Latin “during the second generation after the conquest of 711,” there is no guarantee that the specific details it provides are accurate. (Constable, 33). It is possible that after the passage of many years, the writer’s memories deteriorated and certain minutiae are changed despite the crux of the story remaining the same. Also, it is written from the point of view of a Christian, who most likely has absolutely no insight into the inner workings of the Islamic forces. There are two sides to every story, yet only one is accessible in this case. The interpretation of the invasion from the Christian point of view is inherently biased. The author writes with a bitter tone, remembering when Musa ibn Nusayr “ruined beautiful cities, burning them with fire; condemned lords and powerful men to the cross; and butchered youths and infants with the sword” (Constable, 35). This vitriolic diction highlights the author’s stance in regards to the invaders, and accentuates the bias present in his writing (note the use of the pronoun “his” as the writer is anonymous but most women at the time were illiterate). As a Christian, he is partial to his own faith and could hold resentment towards the Muslims, who had been ruling for a few decades by the time the Chronicle of 754 was written. Overall, it is entirely possible that the information provided is true, but bias and consequence create the shadow of a doubt that most of what he wrote is just a myth.
Another first-hand account comes from Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam in a collection of hadiths, which are “the transmission of ideas religious rules, prophecies, and other knowledge in the form of anecdotes of stories” (Constable, 36). In the early centuries of Islam, hadiths were often transmitted through oral recitation, which is not the most reliable means of passing down information. Even when prefaced with an isnad, a method of authentication through sequences or chains of oral sources to devout Muslims, many details of a hadith could have been lost in translation or misinterpreted by the time they were written down. The information gleaned from this source is also shrouded by the mask of religion. Hadiths exist primarily to serve a religious purpose, not provide modern historians with specifics about the conquest of Spain. Certain elements may have been exaggerated or even completely falsified in order to compel Muslims to act a certain way. An additional reason to question the accuracy of this account is that Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam “was writing far away in the eastern Islamic world,” hundreds of miles away from al-Andalus (Constable, 41). There is much dialogue included in the passage, but it is highly unlikely that exact quotations survived the span of time and distance that it would have required.
Despite actually being located in the center of events in Seville and Cordoba unlike Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam, Ibn al-Qutiyya writes about the events long after they happen, and some of what he wrote is not found anywhere else. An indication that a tidbit of information is correct lies in whether it shows up within multiple unrelated texts, and that does not happen here. However, Ibn al-Qutiyya does provide a unique perspective as an Andalusian author, although not without bias. He wrote that the reason behind the success of the conquest was the betrayal of the last Visigothic king’s three sons. King Roderick (referred to as “Rodrigo” in this source) had asked them to “unite with him against the common enemy” when Tariq arrived in the region (Constable, 41). They agreed, but at the last minute pledged their loyalty and troops to Tariq in exchange for the promise of their father’s land. Ibn al-Qutiyya is thought to be the descended from Visigoths, so he could have exaggerated their involvement in order to inflate his ancestors’ relevance in history. It is possible that the events he describes never happened at all, especially because they are not mentioned in any other source.
Modern day historians make a different type of exaggeration when writing about the Islamic conquest of Spain. In an effort to make a few disjointed events sound more like a smoothly flowing story, minor details are incorporated. However, the sheer amount of minor details soon overtakes the actual facts and the secondary source becomes more legend than truth. For example, Ashtor writes that on the night of Tariq’s initial raid, “the moon was still new and the night was very dark” (Ashtor, 3). There is no way he could possibly have known for sure that there was a new moon that night. Even if he had calculated precisely the amount of moon cycles backwards for over a thousand years, the phases of the moon repeat themselves every 29.53 days and there is no primary source accurate enough to pinpoint on exactly which day Tariq invaded. Not to mention the fact that the Islamic calendar is based on the cycles of the moon while most modern calendars are based on the revolution of the earth around the sun so Ashtor would have had to account for the differences in years. There are countless other details like this one including the state of the clouds on that night, a description of Tariq’s physical appearance, and the strength of the waves as they broke on the shore.
It is worth noting that all of the primary sources are translated either from Latin or Arabic, leaving much up to the discretion of the translator. Multiple words can be interpreted in different ways, many times changing entire storylines. Also, there is no primary source from Tariq himself, leading some to question his existence at all. Since the entire story is based on Tariq’s initial raid, if he did not exist, all of the events that followed his raid could not have occurred. So, what really happened? Until the invention of a time machine, we can never really know.