The Battle of Guadalete was the first major battle of the Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, fought in July 711 at an unidentified location in what is now southern Spain between the Visigoths under their king, Roderic, and the invading forces of the Umayyad Caliphate, composed of mainly Berbers and some ArabsNorman Roth (1976), "The Jews and the Muslim Conquest of Spain ", Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2 pp. 145–58. under the commander Tariq ibn Ziyad. The battle was significant as the culmination of a series of Umayyad attacks and the beginning of al-Andalus. Roderic was killed in the battle, along with many members of the Visigothic nobility, opening the way for the capture of the Visigothic capital of Toledo.
Sources The primary source for the battle is the Mozarabic Chronicle, which was written shortly after 754, probably in the vicinity of Toledo.Roger Collins (1989), The Arab Conquest of Spain, 710–97 (London: Blackwell Publishing), 26–27, argues for its Toledan provenance, but others have suggested Córdoba or even Syria. A full study of the Mozarabic Chronicle is given in Carmen Cardelle de Hartmann (1999), "The Textual Transmission of the Mozarabic Chronicle of 754", Early Medieval Europe, 8 (1), 13–29. The Latin Chronicle was written by a Mozarab Christian. The only other Latin Christian source written within a century of the battle is the Historia Langobardorum of Paul the Deacon.Paul, VI.xlvi , only adds the fact that the "Saracens" came to Hispania from Ceuta. Paul was neither Visigothic nor Hispanic, but was writing probably in Montecassino between 787 and 796, where many Visigothic monks had taken refuge. The Chronicle of 741 is a near-contemporary Hispanic source, but it contains no original material pertaining to the battle. Several later Latin Christian sources contain descriptive accounts of the battle that have sometimes been trusted by historians, most notably the Chronicle of Alfonso III, written by Alfonso III of Asturias in the late ninth century. The high medieval accounts, such as that of Lucas de Tuy, are generally untrustworthy, containing much legend and invention.
Besides the Latin Christian sources are several Arabic-language sources, widely used by historians but increasingly coming under heavy criticism.In the nineteenth century, Reinhart Dozy compared them to the Thousand and One Nights. More recently, Collins (1989) has compared them to the Chanson de Roland for French history (p. 34) or the Lebor na Cert and Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh for Irish history (p. 5), in terms of historical value. None of them predates the mid-ninth century. The earliest, the Futūh Miṣr of Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam (c.803–871), was composed in Egypt.Charles Cutler Torrey, trans. (1922), The History of the Conquest of Egypt, North Africa and Spain: Known as the Futūh Miṣr of Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam (Yale University Press); also John Harris Jones, trans. (1858), History of the Conquest of Spain (Göttingen: W. Fr. Kaestner), pp. 18–22 excerpted at Ibn Abd-el-Hakem: The Islamic Conquest of Spain from Medieval Sourcebook. This account, more rich in detail than the Mozarabic Chronicle, is at odds with not only the later Latin histories, but also the later Arabic ones: the anonymous compilation called the Akhbar Majmu'ah, the late tenth-century work of Ibn al-Qūṭiyya ("the son [i.e. descendant] of the Goth [i.e. Wittiza]"), the eleventh-century historian Ibn Hayyān, the thirteenth-century Complete History of Ibn al-Athir, the fourteenth-century history of Ibn Khaldūn, or the early modern work of al-Maqqarī.For an assessment of the value of these sources for the period of the conquest of Gothic Hispania, see Collins (1989), 1–5. The Akhbar Majmu'ah in particular was upheld by Claudio Sánchez-Albornoz as a genuine eighth-century work surviving only in later copies, but this view has since been refuted.Collins (1989), 3. The French Orientalist Évariste Lévi-Provençal, on the other hand, advocated Ibn Hayyān as the supreme Muslim historian of the era (and of the battle).Collins (1989), 2 note 3 and 3 note 5 summarises some debate concerning the Arab sources.
Among modern Anglo-American historians, Roger Collins, R. A. Fletcher, E. A. Thompson, and Kenneth Baxter Wolf are sceptical of the Arabic sources and rely more on the Mozarabic Chronicle. Historians Thomas F. Glick and Bernard S. Bachrach are less sceptical. Collins in particular rejects a syncretistic approach incorporating information from all the available sources.
Background Though the reign of Roderic is traditionally dated to 710–711, a literal reading of the Mozarabic Chronicle of 754 indicates 711–712. Roderic did not rule unopposed, however. The nature of his accession on the death of Wittiza from natural causes or through his assassination is not clear from the sources. It is possible that Roderic was probably the dux (duke) of Baetica before coming to the throne.Bernard F. Reilly (1993), The Medieval Spains (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 49–50. Archaeological evidence and two surviving lists of kings show that one Achila II ruled in the northeast of the kingdom at this time, but his relationship to Roderic is unknown. Probably they were rivals who never actually came into open conflict, due to the shortness of Roderic's reign and his preoccupation with Muslim raids. Even with Roderic's sphere of influence (the southwest) and his capital Toledo, he was not unopposed after his "usurpation" (the Mozarabic Chronicle calls it an "invasion").Collins (1989), 28
The battle of Guadalete was not an isolated Berber attack but followed a series of raids across the Straits of Gibraltar from North Africa which had resulted in the sack of several south Iberian towns. Berber forces had probably been harassing the peninsula by sea since the conquest of Tangiers in 705–706. Some later Arabic and Christian sources present an earlier raid by a certain Ṭārif in 710 and one, the Ad Sebastianum recension of the Chronicle of Alfonso III, refers to an Arab attack incited by Erwig during the reign of Wamba (672–680). Two reasonably large armies may have been in the south for a year before the decisive battle was fought. These were led by Ṭāriq ibn Ziyad and others under the overall command of Mūsā ibn Nuṣayr."Taric Abuzara" and "others" come from the Mozarabic Chronicle, see Collins (1989), 30. Ṭāriq, which means "chief", is considered an etymological invention by Joaquín Vallvé (1989), "Nuevas ideas sobre la conquista árabe de España: Toponimia y onomástica", Al-Qantara, 10:1, 51–150. For the others that accompanied Ṭāriq—Abdelmelic, Alcama, and Mugheith— see Dykes Shaw (1906), "The Fall of the Visigothic Power in Spain", The English Historical Review, 21:82 (April), 222.
According to all sources, the earliest being Paul the Deacon, Ṭāriq left from Ceuta (Septem) and landed at the Rock of Calpe, the later Gibraltar, which Arabic sources derive from Jebel Tariq, "Rock of Ṭāriq".E. A. Thompson (1969), The Goths in Spain (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 250–51. A legend first recorded by al-Idrīsī has it that Ṭāriq burned his boats after landing to prevent his army from deserting. From Gibraltar he moved to conquer the region of Algeciras and then followed the Roman road that led to Seville.Thomas F. Glick (1979), (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 32. Ṭāriq landed on 28 April 711. According to Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, writing around 860, Ṭāriq, commander of the Berber garrison of Tangiers, crossed the straits with ships supplied by a certain Count Julian (Arabic Ilyan), lord of Ceuta and "Alchadra" (Algeciras), and landed near Cartagena, which he captured and made his headquarters.
According to the Mozarabic Chronicle, Mūsā crossed the Gaditanum fretum (Strait of Cádiz) with a large force in 711In The Buildings of Justinian of Procopius, the term Gaditanum fretum is synonymous with Straits of Gibraltar and need not imply that Mūsā landed at Cádiz (ancient Gades) itself. and remained in Hispania for fifteen months, but it is unclear from the sources if he came before or after the battle of Guadalete, which was fought by the forces of his subordinates. During his time in the peninsula it was racked by civil war (intestino furore confligeratur, "internal frenzy", to the Mozarabic chronicler), cities were razed, and many people were slaughtered in the general destruction.Later Arabic sources state that Mūsā only went to Hispania after news of Ṭāriq's success reached him. He flogged his subordinate in front of his soldiers and then the two together completed the conquest of the peninsula before Mūsā was recalled by the Caliph to Damascus, a fact confirmed by the Mozarabic Chronicle. Mūsā took with him Ṭāriq and many Visigothic prisoners from the taking of Toledo (Collins , 29–31).
According to al-Maqqarī, Roderic was fighting the Basques when he was recalled to the south to deal with an invasion.Roger Collins (1986), The Basques (Londong: Blackwell Publishing), 97. The most specific accounts place Roderic in the vicinity of Pamplona (Shaw, 223). There is also the record of a Byzantine attack on southern Iberia that was repulsed by Theudimer some years before the fall of the Visigothic kingdom. This has led to theories that the Berber attacks may have been related to the Byzantine operation, and that perhaps the Arabs were originally useful allies in a Byzantine attempt to reconquer the lost province of Spania.Bernard S. Bachrach (1973), "A Reassessment of Visigothic Jewish Policy, 589–711", The American Historical Review, 78:1 (February), 32. This theory is predicated on a certain understanding of the identity of the mysterious Count Julian (see "Legend" below). Thompson, 250, is explicit that nothing is known of the context of these Byzantine raids.
The author of the late Asturian Chronica Prophetica (883) dates the first invasion of Spain to "the Ides of November in the year 752 era", that is, 11 November 714.Kenneth Baxter Wolf, ed. (2008). Chronica Prophetica. Medieval Texts in Translation. He also identified two invasions, the first by an Abu Zubra and the second, a year later, by Ṭāriq; probably he has divided the historical figure Ṭāriq ibn Ziyad into two persons.
Date and place The date of the battle is traditionally 711, though this is not the date given by the Mozarabic Chronicle. The Chronicle dates it to 712 and places it before the conquest of Toledo, which it attributes to Mūsā in 711. If this discrepancy is solved by preferring the chronicler's order to his dating, then the battle occurred in 712 and the fall of Toledo later that same year. Later Arabic accounts give an exact date of 25 or 26 July.Bachrach (1973), 32. A more rough dating is between 19 and 23 July.Glick, 32. Some accounts say the battle began on the 19th and lasted one week. Shaw, 224, suspects that many skirmishes preceded the definitive battle (probably on the 25th or 26th). According to David Levering Lewis, the battle took place on 19 July 711. Preceding the battle was an entire week of inconclusive skirmishes near the lake La Janda, in the plain stretching from the Río Barbate to the Río Guadalete.David Levering Lewis (2008), God's Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570–1215 (W.W. Norton & Co.), 123–24.