>>17846083
>ignoring the narrative that the author was trying to build
There is a degree of truth of the chronicle's description of the conquest, but there's no reason to believe that their conquest was as bad as mass slaughters and entire villages being burnt. Especially when we can't find other agreeing sources saying the same, and when the author uses these descriptions as a means to say that the Christians of Hispania were being punished for their sins.
Accounts of Mongolian conquests described them to be acts of near genocide but archeological evidence and further analyses of these accounts indicate that they were heavily over exaggerated both in death count and destruction. Historians don't take historical accounts at face value because this would be retarded.
The Chronicle of 741 also describes the Muslim ruler in a positive light (a prudent man from the most noble of their tribes) and doesn't mention the level of violence you can read in the one of 754.
Let us not also forget the non-Muslim actors that also helped in the conquest of the Visigoths, Jews and potentially even some Christians. Some of the Berbers were also probably not even fully Muslim yet.