Genocide Project

The following is a summary of each section of the book The Other Side of Empire: Just War in the Mediterranean and the Rise of Early Modern Spain:

Part I: Background

• Chapter 1: The Mediterranean in the Spanish Imaginary During the Age of Exploration
  • This section explores how late medieval Spaniards viewed the Mediterranean as a known, cohesive unit, differing from the “shock of discovery” associated with the tropics.
  • Geographic conceptions were deeply tied to the Bible, viewing the earth as a tripartite whole (Asia, Africa, Europe) meeting in the Mediterranean.
  • Control of the Mediterranean, particularly Sicily, was seen as essential for attaining “lordship of the world”.
  • Writers invoked the precedent of ancient Rome and the “universal” primitive Church to justify conquests as acts of recovery or “just war”.
• Chapter 2: The Christian Commonwealth Besieged
  • The section outlines the sense of crisis in 15th-century Latin Christendom caused by the Papal Schism and the rise of the Ottoman Empire.
  • This climate led to the concept of the respublica christiana (Christian commonwealth), which secular rulers like King Ferdinand of Aragon used to frame their political projects as a defense of Christendom.
  • Ferdinand prioritized the defense of Italy against Ottoman incursions, presenting himself as a selfless guardian of the “Christian republic” rather than just a pursuer of dynastic interests.

Part II: Case Studies

• Chapter 3: The Turk Within
  • This chapter analyzes the Franco-Spanish wars for control of Italy and Navarre (1494–1516).
  • Both France and Spain portrayed their conflict as a holy war for the defense of Christendom, even though both were Catholic monarchies.
  • The Spanish justified war against fellow Christians (the French and Navarrese) by labeling them “schismatics” and “enemies of the faith” equal to the Turks.
• Chapter 4: The African Horizon
  • This section examines Spain’s “African enterprise” (1490s–1510), comparing it to the conquest of the Americas.
  • Spanish jurists like Juan López de Palacios Rubios argued that North Africa was a formerly Christian territory that could be recovered in a “just war”.
  • The status of North Africans as “usurpers” of Christian lands differentiated them from the “innocent Gentiles” encountered in the Americas, leading to different legal justifications for conquest.
• Chapter 5: The Eastern Chimera
  • This chapter addresses Ferdinand’s unrealized plans to conquer Egypt, Greece, Turkey, and the Holy Land.
  • Ferdinand used his symbolic title as “King of Jerusalem” to craft legal arguments for just war against non-Christians both in and beyond the Mediterranean.
  • The proposed conquests were often framed as “wars of liberation” to free Eastern Christians from Ottoman or Mamluk rule.
• Chapter 6: One Shepherd, One Flock
  • The final chapter examines 15th- and 16th-century thought on “universal empire”.
  • It analyzes how Spanish, French, and Ottoman rulers all used messianic and millenarian rhetoric to claim political legitimacy.
  • Ferdinand was frequently depicted in court poetry and legal texts as the divinely chosen prince intended to unite the world under “one shepherd”.

Conclusion

• The conclusion argues that the Mediterranean remained the primary focus of Spanish imperial ideology during Ferdinand’s life, only shifting definitively toward the Atlantic after 1580.
• The legal and moral arguments developed in the Mediterranean “crucible” were later adapted—sometimes incoherently—to justify expansion in the Americas.

Andrew W. Devereux’s The Other Side of Empire analyzes Spanish imperial expansion during the late 15th and early 16th centuries, arguing that the Mediterranean remained the central focus of Spanish political and legal thought even as the Atlantic world was being “discovered.”

Key themes and arguments analyzed in the book include:

The “Mediterranean Moment”

• Centrality of the Inner Sea: During the reigns of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Mediterranean was viewed as the “crossroads of the world,” where the three known continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe) met. Control of strategic points like Sicily was considered essential for any ruler aspiring to “lordship of the world.”
• Geopolitical Focus: Spain’s most ambitious projects during this era were focused eastward: winning control of southern Italy, establishing a 2,500-mile string of outposts along the North African coast, and planning for the conquest of Egypt, Greece, and the Holy Land.
• Shift in Perspective: The definitive shift of the Spanish imperial gaze from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic only occurred toward the end of the 16th century (definitively after 1580), long after the initial Atlantic crossings.

Just War and Legal Legitimation

• Mediterranean as a Crucible: The legal and moral arguments later used in the Americas were first forged in Mediterranean conflicts against both fellow Christians (the French) and Muslims (Ottomans and North African states).
• Justifications for Conquest:
  • Recovery of Patrimony: Conquests in North Africa and the Levant were framed as acts of “recovery” or “recuperation” of formerly Christian lands that had been “usurped” by infidels.
  • Defense of Christendom: Wars against Catholic France for control of Italy and Navarre were legitimized by portraying the French as “schismatics” and “enemies of the faith” whose actions threatened the security of the respublica christiana (Christian commonwealth).
  • Theocratic Duties: Rulers like Ferdinand portrayed themselves as divinely appointed guardians of the faith, using titles like “King of Jerusalem” to claim a universal mission to unite the world under “one shepherd.”

Comparison of Mediterranean and Atlantic Projects

• Familiar vs. Exotic: While the Americas presented a “shock of discovery,” Mediterranean lands were “known” and their inhabitants were viewed through established historical, religious, and geographic frameworks.
• Different Legal Status: North Africans were labeled as “usurpers” of Christian lands, which provided a different legal basis for war than that used against the “innocent Gentiles” (the indigenous peoples) encountered in the Americas who had never been exposed to Christianity.
• Resource Allocation: Up through at least the second decade of the 16th century, Spain often devoted more human and material resources to Mediterranean conquests (such as the assault on Orán) than to the struggling early colonies in the Caribbean.

Juan López de Palacios Rubios used a patrimonial argument based on historical exegesis to justify Spanish claims in North Africa.

Key components of his legal reasoning include:

• The Gothic Thesis: Palacios Rubios asserted that North Africa was rightfully part of Spanish patrimony because it had constituted part of the ancient Visigothic kingdom of Hispania. Specifically, he claimed that in the time of St. Augustine, Africa was under the dominion of the Christian kings of Spain.
• Just War of Recuperation: He argued that Spanish expansion into Africa was not an act of original conquest but a “just war” of recovery or recuperation of formerly Christian lands. Because these lands had been “violently occupied” and “usurped” by infidels, he maintained that the Spanish monarch, as the universal heir to the kingdom of Spain, had the right to retake them by his own authority.
• Circumvention of Papal Authority: By grounding the claim in immutable dynastic rights transmitted since late antiquity, Palacios Rubios provided a legal basis that was independent of the papacy. This allowed the Spanish Crown to avoid the evangelical obligations (such as mandated conversion efforts) typically attached to papal bulls of donation, like Ineffabilis et summi.
• Statute of Limitations: He argued that no statute of limitations could apply to the current Muslim rulers because they had taken possession of the land in “bad faith” (mala fe). Therefore, the passage of eight centuries did not invalidate Spain’s right to recuperate the territory.
• Status of Inhabitants as Usurpers: Unlike the “innocent Gentiles” encountered in the Americas who had never heard the Gospel, Palacios Rubios viewed the Muslims of North Africa as tyrannical usurpers of Christian lands. This distinction allowed for more aggressive martial action without the prior requirement of peaceful preaching.

Just war theory is a body of legal and moral doctrines used to justify acts of war and conquest. In the late 15th and early 16th centuries, Spanish thinkers and jurists developed various legal arguments to legitimize their expansionist projects in both the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.

Key aspects of just war theory as discussed in this context include:

• Criteria for Just War: A war could be considered “just” if it met specific criteria, such as being a defensive action against an aggressor or an act to recover “lost” patrimony.
• Just War vs. Holy War: A legal distinction existed between a “just war” (guerra justa) and a “holy war” (guerra divinal). A just war might be fought against fellow Christians, but a holy war was specifically waged against “enemies of the faith” for the elevation of Catholicism or the extension of Christendom’s boundaries.
• Wars of Recuperation: Spanish jurists frequently justified conquests in North Africa and the Holy Land as wars of recuperation. They argued these were act of recovery for lands that had once been Christian and were currently being “usurped” by infidels.
• Wars of Liberation: Martial actions against Islamic polities, particularly the Ottoman Empire, were often framed as “wars of liberation” to free oppressed Christian subjects.
• Legitimation Against Fellow Christians: To justify war against fellow Catholic powers like France, Spain portrayed their opponents as “schismatics” and “enemies of the faith,” whose actions (like supporting an unsanctioned church council) posed a threat to the security of the entire Christian commonwealth (respublica christiana).
• Papal Authority: Popes often used their claimed status as dominus mundi (lord of the world) to “donate” lands held by non-Christians to Christian rulers, providing a legal basis for conquest. However, some Spanish jurists developed arguments to circumvent papal authority by grounding claims in immutable dynastic rights tracing back to late antiquity.

Juan López de Palacios Rubios used a patrimonial and historical argument, known as the Gothic thesis, to justify Spanish claims in North Africa.

Key elements of his legal reasoning include:

• The Gothic Thesis: He asserted that North Africa was rightfully part of the Spanish monarch’s patrimony because it had been under the dominion of the Christian Visigothic Kings of Spain in the 5th century during the time of St. Augustine.
• Just War of Recuperation: He argued that Spanish expansion was not an original conquest but a “just war” of recovery or recuperation of formerly Christian lands that had been “unjustly occupied” or “usurped” by infidels.
• Bad Faith and Statute of Limitations: He maintained that no statute of limitations could apply to the current Muslim rulers because they took possession of the land in “bad faith” (mala fe), making their rule permanently illegitimate regardless of how much time had passed.
• Independence from Papal Authority: By grounding the claim in immutable dynastic rights transmitted since late antiquity, Palacios Rubios provided a legal basis that was independent of the papacy.
• Circumvention of Evangelical Obligations: This historical argument allowed the Spanish Crown to avoid the evangelical obligations, such as mandated conversion efforts, that were typically attached to papal bulls of donation.
• Status of Inhabitants as Usurpers: He viewed the Muslim rulers of North Africa as tyrannical usurpers, a status that differentiated them from the “innocent Gentiles” encountered in the Americas who had never been exposed to Christianity.

In the early sixteenth century, the Mediterranean remained the central focus of the Spanish imperial imaginary, representing a cohesive unit that was religiously, historically, and culturally familiar. Even as the Atlantic world opened up, Spanish political and legal thought remained deeply rooted in the “inner sea,” which was viewed as the strategic and geopolitical “crossroads of the world”.

The Mediterranean’s significance during this period is characterized by the following themes:

• A Space for Universal Empire: Geographers and political thinkers believed that lordship of the world could only be attained through control of the Mediterranean, where the three known continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe) met. Strategic points like Sicily were considered essential “breadbaskets” and provisioners for all three parts of the world.
• A Crucible for Legal Precedent: The Mediterranean served as a “crucible” where legal and moral arguments for just war were forged through conflicts with both fellow Christians (the French) and Muslims (Ottomans and North Africans). These arguments, based on prior Christian rule and the recovery of “lost” patrimony, were later adapted for use in the Americas.
• The Locus of a “Mediterranean Moment”: This era (roughly 1450s–1510s) was marked by a combination of dread regarding Ottoman westward expansion and extreme optimism for Christian conquests in Africa and the Levant. Rulers like King Ferdinand used titles such as “King of Jerusalem” to frame their expansionist projects as divinely ordained missions to protect Christendom.
• Familiarity vs. the “Exotic” Atlantic: Unlike the “shock of discovery” associated with the tropics, Mediterranean lands were “known”. Inhabitants were viewed through established historical and geographic frameworks, and North Africans were specifically labeled as “usurpers” of Christian lands, providing a different legal basis for conquest than that used against the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
• Resource Priority: Up until at least the second decade of the sixteenth century, the Spanish Crown often dedicated more human and material resources to Mediterranean conquests (such as the assault on Orán) than to the early, struggling colonies in the Caribbean.

In the early sixteenth century, the Mediterranean held profound significance in the Spanish imperial imaginary as the central focus of geopolitical, strategic, and religious thought. While the Atlantic was opening, Spaniards remained deeply rooted in the “inner sea,” viewing it as a known space that constituted the true “crossroads of the world”.

The significance of the Mediterranean during this period is characterized by the following themes:

• Geopolitical Linchpin for Universal Empire: Late medieval geographers believed Asia, Africa, and Europe met in the Mediterranean. Control of strategic points, particularly Sicily, was considered essential for any ruler aspiring to “lordship of the world”.
• A Crucible for Legal Precedent: The Mediterranean served as a “laboratory” for forging legal and moral arguments concerning just war and conquest. Arguments based on prior Christian rule and the recovery of “lost” patrimony were developed through conflicts in Italy and North Africa and later adapted—often awkwardly—for the Americas.
• The “Mediterranean Moment” (roughly 1450s–1510s): This era was marked by a combination of intense dread regarding westward Ottoman expansion and wild optimism for Christian conquests in Africa and the Levant. Rulers like King Ferdinand used titles such as “King of Jerusalem” to frame expansionist projects as divine missions to protect the respublica christiana (Christian commonwealth).
• Familiarity vs. the “Exotic” Atlantic: Unlike the “shock of discovery” associated with the tropics, Mediterranean lands were “known”. Its inhabitants were viewed through established historical frameworks; for instance, North Africans were often labeled “usurpers” of formerly Christian lands, providing a different legal basis for war than that used against the “innocent Gentiles” of the Americas.
• Priority of Resources: Until at least the second decade of the sixteenth century, the Spanish Crown often dedicated significantly more human and material resources to Mediterranean conquests (such as the assault on Orán) than to the struggling early colonies in the Caribbean.