Explain the reasons why religious uniformity was so important to the Catholic Kings

brief spell of unity was not the result of a deliberate policy to achieve national identity and patriotism, but that Ferdinand and Isabella had seen a need to unifying people so that their aims, for example the conquest of Granada can be carried out. I think that Ferdinand and Isabella were merely capitalising on the ability of religion to call people together to achieve their aims and later, during the Inquisition, as an instrument to assert control and authority. At same time, by using a religious "guise", Papal support could be obtained, and with it the tremendous amount of funds and power. Religion had served to provide some unity to the kingdoms, but it was a temporary and superficial kind, used to satisfy the selfish interests of the monarchs - that of enhancing their prestige, and gaining wealth and resources for Spain. Otherwise, there was never any attempt on the part of the monarchs to seek the establishment of a United Spain. The expulsion of the Jews was another religious policy that seemed to emulate unity. However, this created only a false sense of religious homogeneity. The Conversos were resentful and uncommitted to the Catholic faith, which laid undercurrents that had the potential to disrupt Castile and Aragon. The coexistence and tolerance of the Muslim, Jewish and Christian community would have been a more characteristic reflection of a united country. Instead the policy bred anti-Semitism, which was harmful to unity. The similar departure of the Moors was also reflective of the racial intolerance of the time and a proof that unity could not have existed. In truth, religious policies seem to be the root of more disunity than unity. But if unity was not to be based on religion, was there in fact unity in Spain in any other way then? To begin with, "...the achievement of a united Spain was never an objective of the Catholic Kings." (Kaman) From the start, the marriage contract of Ferdinand and Isabella clearly excluded the former from interfering in the affairs of Castile. Similarly, Isabella had limited powers in Aragon. Of course, Isabella did give Ferdinand greater rights to participate in government, even authorising him to oversee justice on her behalf. There was much consultation between the two rulers, and decisions were taken with the two monarchs in full agreement. They had an excellent working relationship in which their strengths and shortcomings complemented each other. However, this constitutes a personal union only: there was no formal unity, whether in practice or on paper and both kingdoms retained its autonomy. I am inclined to agree with Kaman and to think that there was no real unity. But a "collaboration" An excellent one, no doubt, but not a concrete one. Besides, personal closeness reflects very little on extent of national unity. To draw a modern analogy. The headmaster might have a excellent understanding and a superb working relationship with his deputy head but this does not tell you that the college population is united. If there remains animosity between the medicine and the arts faculty, such closeness at the top levels can do little to influence a change of sentiment. Perhaps the main thing that gives the impression of a lack of unity was that, unlike their successor Charles, there was no one ruler, but two distinct rulers over two separate kingdoms, which were governed on different lines with different institutions. Not till Charles’ succession was there 1 ruler over two realms. This more of less must have contributed to the separateness of Castilians and Aragonese. Ferdinand and Isabella were not to blame - Castile and Aragon were too different in many aspects that to forge a union would not be a feasible move. The gaping difference in size and population of the two kingdoms would have favoured Castile and disadvantaged Aragon. Aragon also had to envy the economic success of Castile. A union of the two kingdoms will likely result in the subjugation of Aragon (and in fact, Castile became dominant even without a merger) which Ferdinand could not have risked. Also, Castile’s concept of government was vastly different from the Aragonese attitude towards authority. Castile in itself was a united state recognising an absolute monarchy, which faced no "obstacle to a long term extension of its authority over the various autonomous units" (Kaman), whereas in Aragon "a different set of institutions and traditions made it difficult for Ferdinand to imitate the successes of Isabella in extending royal authority." (Maland) As reflected by wording of the oath of allegiance to him, Ferdinand had insufficient control and power over his people at that point in time to even contemplate such a move. He would have trouble securing their obedience, much less get them to obey Isabella in a collective leadership. There existed a feudalistic social/political structure. Aragon was made up of three kingdoms, each independent, which would not be so easily yield to a central Castilian authority. Perhaps the reason that Ferdinand and Isabella never planned to unite the two Crown was simply that such a move was far too Herculean to execute. Thus there existed no joint administrative or political structure for the two kingdoms. The Royal Council of Castile had a chamber dealing with affairs of Aragon. This only goes to hint at the subordinated status of Aragon in relation to Castile. The absence of political unity must have been a direct cause of the economic disunity. "No joint policy measures were taken to integrate the economic lives of Aragon and Castile, which remained separate and competitive in all respects" (Kaman) Certainly there was a unification of coinage and made on the transport of goods, but that was no true indication of economic unity, simply a necessity to facilitate exchange and trade. And despite such reforms, up till 1497, the transport of goods (but specifically grain) within Spain was troubled by custom barriers and export restrictions. Aragon had to import grain from other countries while Castile was producing surplus grain. That was some indication of unity! Aragon was also disallowed to participate in Castile’s lucrative wool trade and was excluded from the gains made from America. This would have incurred the resentment of the Aragonese business community at being unable to share in the expanding wealth of Castile. What the kingdoms had in common was Alcabala, the sales tax, introduced by the two monarchs, but that was a means of funding the royal household, with no unifying aims. Justice was carried out by the Hermandades, which tried wrongdoers and dealt out severe punishments. Although in 1476, the Hermandad was implemented in every place with more than fifty inhabitants in Castile, it was not established in Aragon. This disparity means that offenders of the law in both realms would have thus been subjected to a different standard of judgement and dealt with in a different manner. This does not reflect any unity. The closest Aragon and Castile came to unity was over the matter of foreign policy - both kingdoms adopted joint diplomatic policies towards other countries. This means that both kingdoms took the same stance on international issues, which is characteristic of unity. Yet foreign policy was mainly decided by Ferdinand. Isabella did not involve herself in Ferdinand’s many military conquests and expansion plans, but supplied the important financial and military reinforcements. The gains from these conquests were both given to Castile or Aragon, and not shared equally between the two. This is another indication that there was no unity. Therefore, my view of the statement, "The unity of Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella was based on religion." is that there was very little unity, if any at all, in Spain during their reign, whether based on religion or not. What religion did provide was a powerful means to achieve unity, in those circumstances, with two kingdoms so vastly different that reconciliation of would be difficult by any other method. Yet the monarchs did not capitalise on, since the creation of a united Spain was never on their agenda or a goal. Religious policies did create the appearance of homogeneity in faith, and was used to bring some unity to the Spanish people for a period of time during the Reconquista. But such unity was transient, and not greatly significant, as can be seen from the disruption in the kingdoms after the death of Isabella and Ferdinand.