Machiavelli's The Reconquista In Spain

1193 Words5 Pages

The idea of State has always existed in different period of history, however the definition of the state changed according to the historical and social circumstances of the time. The definition on which the paper is built upon is the one from Roberts (1979) who characterizes the state as “the presence of a supreme authority, ruling over a defined territory, who is recognized as having power to make decisions in matters of government, ... is able to enforce such decisions and generally maintain order within the state”. Considering this definition, it can be assumed that a state needs to be authoritarian, own a territory, and make prove of efficiency, as well as legitimacy. On this basis, it is consider that not all the countries became states …show more content…

The two most powerful kingdoms left after that were the realm of Castile and Aragon. When Ferdinand II, the king of Aragon, married Isabella I, the queen of Castile, the two kingdoms unified, although in a “personal union”. Since Spain owned different institutions for each kingdom, there was a political division, and the state did not exist (Palmer, Colton & Kramer, 2006). The marriages were considered as political alliances between the Christians monarchs, also named as “Fortuna” in Machiavelli’s opinion. Nevertheless, the marriage between two monarchs was considered as well as an alliance to converge two powers in one and two strengthen the power over the senores, and that procedure was the result of the Military Revolution. Tilly (1985) elaborates a thesis which explains that the new artillery, as new forms of protection as the “trace italienne” provoked the rise of monarchical armies. The new armies were extremely expensive for the monarchs who, to afford them, centralized the power and collected taxes from the people. In order to avoid rebellions, the King justified himself ensuring security and protection. Moreover, the philosophical theories of the 17th century influenced the people’s perceptions of the image of the King, which were “the state of two bodies” and “Raison d’Etat”. The first theory explains the existence of the king in one entity that can die and the existence of the spiritual entity of the king, the second one, a theory argued by Machiavelli, is based on the legitimization of all actions of the King if they are made to help the state (Opello & Rosow,