This is how Philip II frustrated the last Muslim attempt to create an independent kingdom in the Iberian Peninsula

–Why did the Moors rise up? The problems started half a century before the Alpujarras…

The problem started in 1492, when the capitulations of Santa Fe were signed. In principle it was agreed to respect the customs and religion of the Muslims who surrendered. There was a time of assimilation, but, unfortunately, the extremes prevailed. A new bishop close to the general Inquisition arrived in Granada, and that caused a first rebellion in 1500 and the capitulations went to hell. In the end a maxim was imposed: conversion or expulsion. A good part of the Moriscos opted for the former, but the problem remained latent. Although on an official level they were Christians, secretly they all preserved their customs, their language and their worship. They spoke Spanish, of course, but they were Arabs.

–How did Felipe II deal with it?

Charles I knew how to handle this problem well, with tolerance and a left hand. Philip II, however, allowed himself to be advised by those nobles who demanded forced and immediate assimilation. In the end, a pragmatic sanction was enacted that forced the Moors to abandon their customs and clothing. And what had to happen happened: a rebellion that was only intended to give the monarch a wake-up call, but that ended up getting out of hand.

–Did the rebellion come about, then, due to bad religious policy?

The rebellion came about because the religious policy proposed by Fray Hernando de Talavera, first archbishop of Granada, was abandoned. His maxim was that the converts should be taught little by little the friendlier side of the Church. This idea was replaced by a vision of the Moorish as an enemy, an inquisitorial view that was met with criticism that the bishopric was full of false converts. That’s when the policy of suffocation began. The Moors were forced to leave behind their clothes, their customs, their festivals… It was no longer enough for them to have been baptized, to attend church and to be equal to Christians. When you corner a population, like this case, an explosive situation is generated.

–Who was the initial leader of the revolt?

Abén Humeya, a Castilian who belonged to the high Nasrid nobility, who was nostalgic for the past and who found himself entangled in Turkish diplomacy. This tempted the Moriscos with specific support from Barbary and Algiers in exchange for a rebellion; They assured them that, if they rose up, they would support them with ammunition, money and soldiers. Humeya was captivated by the idea that he would stop being a second-rate nobleman and become the new Emir of Granada. Pressure and political interests led to conflict. Although the biggest problem was the rise to power of the Monfíes, exalted bandits who became a kind of Taliban of the time. They were the ones who took power shortly after and committed crimes of all types and conditions. With his arrival, any attempt at conciliation was bathed in blood.

–What would you say was the initial objective of the rebellion?

The initial purpose of the rebels was to force the monarch to negotiate, as had happened with Charles I. Two months later there were some who wanted to reach an agreement because they saw that it had gotten out of hand. But Aben Humeya’s objective was different. After being proclaimed emir, sultan or king – he can be named in all three ways – he proposed founding an independent emirate. Still, he knew that he would be subordinate to the Sublime Gate. In fact, he recognized the Sultan of Constantinople as his lord.

–Could the Ottomans have reached our coasts if the Moors had defeated?

It was a war in which the Ottoman Empire invested money, military advisors, political and diplomatic influence… Felipe II knew that, if a rebellion in the Alpujarras lasted and the Turks claimed Tunisia and Cyprus, the next thing would be to see a fleet disembarkation in Almuñécar, Alicante or Cartagena.

–Did Philip II think that the war would reach the dimensions it did?

When a monster leaves the cage it is impossible to put it back inside. With the revolt the atrocities and massacres began… Philip II was caught with his pants down. I expected a little resistance, some protests… but not a war as such. In practice it was a disaster because, at least at the beginning, there were no troops in Granada.

–You affirm that the rebellion was a civil war.

Sources confirm that, if a Moorish dressed as an old Castilian, or vice versa, there was no way to distinguish them. They were two populations that lived together and had friction, but they shared a sovereign, customs and territories. So yes, it was a civil war, and a sad war. From the beginning the acts of cruelty were general on both sides. The monfies, for example, became famous for filling the priests’ mouths with gunpowder and setting it alight, or for removing the hearts of prisoners from their backs. In exchange, the old Castilians put the entire population to the sword, raped the women and sold the children as slaves. The moderates, once again, found themselves overwhelmed by extremists on both sides.

–Were there more moderates than exalted?

I think it is a good reflection of the novel: how the masses, who are moderate, are forced to get involved in a civil war that no one wanted. But I also really liked the theme of identity. One of my characters, Miguel the Moor, reflects in the play about who he is. Is he Miguel or Musa? Is he Spanish or does he belong to a new state that has risen from the ashes as a sultanate or an emirate? Identity is what forces us to decide, and many times it is a tragedy. Nationalism is the most ruthless beast that human beings have created. It is gaining more and more strength and forces us to perpetrate atrocities like those we see in Gaza and Ukraine… or political absurdities like those in Spain.

–How was the conflict raised from the Christian side?

At first two sides were generated. On the one hand there was the Viceroy of Granada, who was a temperate man, he knew his subjects well and he longed for this not to get out of hand. He only wanted the rebellion to end quickly and without atrocities, so he was betting on conciliation. In exchange, there were other nobles such as Don Luis de Fajardo, who, after entering with the Murcia militias to repress the rebels, maintained that there should be no conciliation. In practice there was no consensus when it came to waging war.

–What measures did Philip II take? The most famous was putting his stepbrother in front…

That is. Philip II knew that he had to appoint someone with a lot of prestige to bring the nobles to heel; a person who was above them from a social point of view. But he also knew that the chosen one had to allow himself to be handled by royal advisors. The chosen one was Don Juan, his stepbrother. He was a soldier who had been well trained in Alcalá with Alejandro Farnesio and Prince Charles, the last great knight in the history of Spain.

–Did it go well?

Well… The problem for Philip II was that Don Juan did not allow himself to be watched and showed a lot of military initiative. The battles he fought in Galera, or in the Almanzora valley, showed that he was not only a knight or a dreamer, but a great general. He attracted the applause and admiration of the people, the army and the king.

–He claims that this war was what turned him into an adult.

He faced a terrible war. At the age of twenty he had to lead a horrible conflict in which fighting took place in the mountains and there were terrible sieges against real eagles’ nests. They were very tough battles where artillery played an essential role, where Tercios had to be brought from Italy and where the Turks put in the effort by sending janissaries, weapons, gold and ammunition. For Don Juan of Austria it was a process of maturity. He was a prince with many ideals and he realized that war was a horror, that it had nothing to do with what he had read in books of chivalry. Seeing the face of true death made him become a mature man.

–He explains that Don Juan saw the person he considered his true father die in this war.

Yes. Don Juan of Austria never heard the word son from the emperor. He was a boy who grew up next to Don Luis de Quijada, who had been royal butler to Charles I. De Quijada died in combat in front of his pupil. Hence this process of revenge, to which I give so much importance in the novel.

–Did that death turn Don Juan of Austria into a ruthless character?

No. Then he was generous, understanding and merciful to the defeated. Unlike Philip II, who was inflexible. And, despite the fact that many Moriscos had accepted the agreed conditions, they were expelled from the Kingdom of Granada. That was something that devastated the economy and society of the area forever. It is in this panorama where my characters move: Mehmet, José de Monteagudo and María la Bailaora.

–Is revenge the driving force of your novel?

‘Until I can kill you’ has as its ‘leitmotiv’ the feeling of revenge, the desire to exact it. The novel begins by generating this feeling between the two protagonists: Mehmet al-Rumi – a janissary, the only soldiers capable of confronting the Tercios – and José de Monteagudo – second lieutenant of the Tercio López de Figueroa. The key is that, in the case of the Spaniard, the sensations are nuanced by a love story that will not prevent him from wanting to exact that revenge, but that will ensure that it is not the only thing in his life. In the case of the Turkish it is not cushioned by anything. To me, these two soldiers are two projections of their respective empires, the best and the worst. Mehmet represents an empire that, at that time, disputed the Mediterranean with Spain and that, if it were not for Lepanto, would have conquered Italy. The only empire with the capacity to project its power to other continents along with that of the Hispanic Monarchy. What I want to emphasize is that it is not a tear-jerker novel, it is a novel that shows two powers at their peak, two powers that end up colliding in the Alpujarras, in a forgotten civil war, one of the most brutal. that have been lived here.