Ebu after searching once and again, because I thought and seems I thought right you had some fail, the Hispanorromans were Catholic and Visigoths Arrian, always heard and read it to be that way, and had researched again and still find the same.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That's what I had heard as well. But by 1066 the Arian christians had all converted to Islam or Catholicism, as far as I know.
The Basques were Catholic in 1066 weren't they? No pagans ready to ambush the Franks?
Yep. King Reccared of the Visigoths converted from Arian to Catholic Christanity in 589. Everybody followed suit.
Yeah, de facto, it encouraged mass conversion. But the taxes weren't set up to do that.
Islamic law is rather specific on fiscal matters -- it forbids the taxing of Muslim property (except zakat, but those revenues are already earmarked for redistribution to the poor). So the Caliphate had no choice but to run on non-Muslim money. The Muslim authorities actively discouraged conversion, but couldn't quite forbid it.
They did everything they could to keep the Christian cash-cow intact. Christian peasants were given property rights over ex-feudal lands they worked on. Already in the 650s, Caliph Omar issued a decree forbidding Muslims from seizing conquered Christian land (and, a little later, the Umayyads even forbade them from buying it).
But to no avail. They converted en masse anyway.
To Conrad:
As I said in my earlier post, contrary to the Muslim invasion, the Visigoth take over was done by a whole population movement. This was not a mere "Army" that came into Iberia, this was a wholescale population moving, much like most of the Germanic invasions into the Roman Empire and not to be confused with the Muslim Army that came to Iberia to loot but then decided to take over the land and ruled just as overlords. When Caesar slaughtered 100.000 Helvetii, he did not slaughter a mere "Army" those were their women, children, grandfathers plus servants comming along...and this was much alike the Visigoth drive through Europe, much like the Suevii and Alanii (less people though, about 50.000 each). So, no, I do not think it was mostly romance footsoldiers and some Visigoth nobles.
We have to see clearly the very reason for those migrations (more than invasions) to take place in the first place..those people were fleeing the even more barbarous eastern neigbours.
And yes, you are totally right about the Arrianism. I let myself be duped by the information a doubious website.
The Visigoths where already Arrian in belief when they came to Iberia in 411. It is very much true though that Iberia had been visited before by Arrian preachers like Pricillius and that there as a sizeable Arrian minority already present by the time of the Visigoth arrival.
Eventhough the Visigoth monarchy "officially" converted to catholism in 589 a big group of their folk still held onto their old beliefs and no few revolts were sparked due to this religious division.
Up to 710 a pro Arrian Visigoth King, Vitiza, was again in power and much infighting took again place till his death and the raise of the unpopular "Don Rodrigo". What is sure is that the Muslim invasion of 711 found still a great amount of Visigoth nobles ready to convert to their closer resembling religion rather than fleeing. While most of the population was indeed catholic, a great amount of them converted too to Islam in the comming years together with the bulk of the Arrian Christians.
Today we can still find Arrian comunities in North Africa, that did indeed fall so quick due to their close religious belief. This same applies to Syria, Palestina and Egypt that had great amounts of monotheist population too.
As I said in my earlier post, contrary to the Muslim invasion, the Visigoth take over was done by a whole population movement. This was not a mere "Army" that came into Iberia, this was a wholescale population moving, much like most of the Germanic invasions into the Roman Empire and not to be confused with the Muslim Army that came to Iberia to loot but then decided to take over the land and ruled just as overlords. When Caesar slaughtered 100.000 Helvetii, he did not slaughter a mere "Army" those were their women, children, grandfathers plus servants comming along...and this was much alike the Visigoth drive through Europe, much like the Suevii and Alanii (less people though, about 50.000 each). So, no, I do not think it was mostly romance footsoldiers and some Visigoth nobles.
We have to see clearly the very reason for those migrations (more than invasions) to take place in the first place..those people were fleeing the even more barbarous eastern neigbours.
And yes, you are totally right about the Arrianism. I let myself be duped by the information a doubious website.
The Visigoths where already Arrian in belief when they came to Iberia in 411. It is very much true though that Iberia had been visited before by Arrian preachers like Pricillius and that there as a sizeable Arrian minority already present by the time of the Visigoth arrival.
Eventhough the Visigoth monarchy "officially" converted to catholism in 589 a big group of their folk still held onto their old beliefs and no few revolts were sparked due to this religious division.
Up to 710 a pro Arrian Visigoth King, Vitiza, was again in power and much infighting took again place till his death and the raise of the unpopular "Don Rodrigo". What is sure is that the Muslim invasion of 711 found still a great amount of Visigoth nobles ready to convert to their closer resembling religion rather than fleeing. While most of the population was indeed catholic, a great amount of them converted too to Islam in the comming years together with the bulk of the Arrian Christians.
Today we can still find Arrian comunities in North Africa, that did indeed fall so quick due to their close religious belief. This same applies to Syria, Palestina and Egypt that had great amounts of monotheist population too.
Certainly not "everybody", Arrianism was alife and well up to the Muslim invasion and certainly aided them in their conquest and liberation from Catholic oppresion (much like the Jews). Vitiza, Visigoth King till 710 was a staunch Arrian faith defensor.
Some ven go as far as to say that Taric (sounds germanic if you ask me), was the Visigothic governor of Tanger, arrian himself was more than happy to lend his fleet to the Muslim host to cross over and that this story later morphed into the trecherous Count Julian slighted over the mistreatment of his daughter by Don Rodrigo.
Ebusitanus wrote:
_______________________________________________
As I said in my earlier post, contrary to the Muslim invasion, the Visigoth take over was done by a whole population movement.
_______________________________________________
Still, I doubt the ethnic homogenity of this Visigothic population movement. It is hard for me to see them as more "Scandinavian" than the Americans are "English".
The Visigoths were not only masters at plundering, they were also masters at subjugating peoples. They started out in Poland and extended their rule down to the Black Sea ruling the ancestors of the Slavs (giving them a load of Germanic loan-words). Then they stayed a while in the Balkans, then in Italy before moving on to France and Spain. They could not have succeeded in doing this if they had not known how to "make use of" conquered nations.
So, I still doubt that this huge amount of Visigoths was very Visigothic in composition.
I am pretty sure we can compare the Goths to the Moors.
_______________________________________________
As I said in my earlier post, contrary to the Muslim invasion, the Visigoth take over was done by a whole population movement.
_______________________________________________
Still, I doubt the ethnic homogenity of this Visigothic population movement. It is hard for me to see them as more "Scandinavian" than the Americans are "English".
The Visigoths were not only masters at plundering, they were also masters at subjugating peoples. They started out in Poland and extended their rule down to the Black Sea ruling the ancestors of the Slavs (giving them a load of Germanic loan-words). Then they stayed a while in the Balkans, then in Italy before moving on to France and Spain. They could not have succeeded in doing this if they had not known how to "make use of" conquered nations.
So, I still doubt that this huge amount of Visigoths was very Visigothic in composition.
I am pretty sure we can compare the Goths to the Moors.
I wont go into the debate about what was the ethnic composition of the Visigoths was before they crossed the Danube and went into their Roman Empire tour, yet I´m pretty confident that the average roman citizen had not much inclination in following a barbarian horde and become part of it.
Fact is Conrad, that it was a whole people moving and not some type of Army, that is wifes, children, servants, etc...moving along the column. The "Moor" was a mere "Army" and if in doubt please look up some history book. Much like the Conquistadores in South America were a army and not a people (They did not bring their familes along unlike the British colonization of North America).
Fact is Conrad, that this, like you call it, cosmopolitan Army, enacted very strickt rules as to avoid mixing with the Hispano-Roman population for centuries till they saw it better to melt with them in a later stage.
In regards about your "subjugating" and taking along hits frontally with the fact that the Visigoths in their march through the Roman Empire rarely stayed in the same place more than a few years, hardly a way of getting the locals to join their Arrian Army.
Conrad, I do not care if the Visigoths were Nordic Gods or some Scandinavian people. I´m sure that Spain has enough blond people without the need to look for some mythic Visigoth past. For all I care call them Slavs, who cares? The fact of the matter is that they came in excess of 250.000 to Iberia and not just warriors. They just did not leave anyone behind beyond the Danube. These type of migrations were very common amongst these Germanic peoples. The Franks did it, the Lombards did it, the Suevii did it, the Alanii did it, the Anglos did it, the Saxons did it and centuries before that the Helvetii were just trying to do the same till Caesar cut them to pieces and the reason the Celts were in Roman times in Gaul and on the west side of the Rhine was because they vacated the east due to other population pressures.
If you do not see the diference then we might just talk about some other issue then because its quite clear.
Alright! I never intended to make you this angry 
I have no intention of causing anything else but an interesting discussion about the history of Spain.
One way of judging the settlement of an entire nation is to look at place names.
Are there many Visigothic place names in Spain?
There are many moorish place names, so we could expect that the settlement of 250 000 people would entail a huge amount of new place names, unless there were very few left after the reconquista.
But you're probably right. We'd better talk about something else.
I have no intention of causing anything else but an interesting discussion about the history of Spain.
One way of judging the settlement of an entire nation is to look at place names.
Are there many Visigothic place names in Spain?
There are many moorish place names, so we could expect that the settlement of 250 000 people would entail a huge amount of new place names, unless there were very few left after the reconquista.
But you're probably right. We'd better talk about something else.
Last edited:
Conrad, I´m not angry at all, just perhaps a bit tired. I do hope you even aknowledge the very invasion of these Visigoth migration in 411.
There are plenty of last names and names in Spanish that can trace back its origins to the Visigoth influence.
We have to make clear also that the Visigoth migration was certainly not a cultural benefit for Iberia since it took the already developed Hispano-Roman society stright into the darkest middle ages much like the Franks did in Gaul or the Anglos and saxons did in ex-Roman Britain.
Visigoths in their primitive situation did not much but bring along new legal forms based loosely upon the Germanic law and did not help in regards of being cultiral mecenas or even town founders due to their own very nomadic reality that found rest in Iberia.
The Visigoths basically took over the towns raised by the Romans much like the Muslims did themselves. The diference is that Visigoths quickly took the Latin as their own tongue and thus had no much need of "changing" names. The Muslims did not adapt to Latin but imposed their culture totally upon the primitive chaos left by the Visigoths and thus "moselmitzed" most existing Roman town names or just created new ones for them. This is a HUGE diference Conrad and I hope you see where I´m comming from.
Equally we can say that today there are very few towns or villages that can trace back their names to the pre Roman invasion during the 2nd Punic war. This of course does not mean that there was no meaninguful population living in Iberia before the Roman arrival.
Its dominating culture which sets names. Those without this superior adjective will merely adapt to what there is, much like the less refined reconquering Castillians did not care much about switching the moslemitzed city names back to their ancient Hispano-Roman forms.
That said, we can though trace back numerous personal last names, first names and useful words back to a Visigoth influence.
To say again also that the figure of 250.000 Visigoth souls is not a disputed figure and is, if anything, a moderate estimate. Not to forget that Suevii and Alanii had already settled into Iberia before the Visigoth arrival and had brought with them about 50.000 souls each too.
There are plenty of last names and names in Spanish that can trace back its origins to the Visigoth influence.
We have to make clear also that the Visigoth migration was certainly not a cultural benefit for Iberia since it took the already developed Hispano-Roman society stright into the darkest middle ages much like the Franks did in Gaul or the Anglos and saxons did in ex-Roman Britain.
Visigoths in their primitive situation did not much but bring along new legal forms based loosely upon the Germanic law and did not help in regards of being cultiral mecenas or even town founders due to their own very nomadic reality that found rest in Iberia.
The Visigoths basically took over the towns raised by the Romans much like the Muslims did themselves. The diference is that Visigoths quickly took the Latin as their own tongue and thus had no much need of "changing" names. The Muslims did not adapt to Latin but imposed their culture totally upon the primitive chaos left by the Visigoths and thus "moselmitzed" most existing Roman town names or just created new ones for them. This is a HUGE diference Conrad and I hope you see where I´m comming from.
Equally we can say that today there are very few towns or villages that can trace back their names to the pre Roman invasion during the 2nd Punic war. This of course does not mean that there was no meaninguful population living in Iberia before the Roman arrival.
Its dominating culture which sets names. Those without this superior adjective will merely adapt to what there is, much like the less refined reconquering Castillians did not care much about switching the moslemitzed city names back to their ancient Hispano-Roman forms.
That said, we can though trace back numerous personal last names, first names and useful words back to a Visigoth influence.
To say again also that the figure of 250.000 Visigoth souls is not a disputed figure and is, if anything, a moderate estimate. Not to forget that Suevii and Alanii had already settled into Iberia before the Visigoth arrival and had brought with them about 50.000 souls each too.
Thanks Ebusitanus.
I am sorry to have forgotten the references for this and you may take it as you will, but it seems to confirm what you have written.
In the 15th century there was a Catholic meeting in which the Spaniards claimed to be entitled to the best seats as they were "the descendants of Goths" (in that day and age it was "valorizing"). The Swedes opposed this and claimed that they were the "real Goths" and that they instead were entitled to the best seats. The Spaniards sneered that it was better to be descended from the brave who left than to be descended from the cowardly stay-at-homers. The pope, however, decided that it was a draw.
Apparently, if my memory doesn't fail, there were enough Goths settling in Spain to leave a strong memory of being "Gothic" in the ruling class, even towards the end of the reconquista.
I am sorry to have forgotten the references for this and you may take it as you will, but it seems to confirm what you have written.
In the 15th century there was a Catholic meeting in which the Spaniards claimed to be entitled to the best seats as they were "the descendants of Goths" (in that day and age it was "valorizing"). The Swedes opposed this and claimed that they were the "real Goths" and that they instead were entitled to the best seats. The Spaniards sneered that it was better to be descended from the brave who left than to be descended from the cowardly stay-at-homers. The pope, however, decided that it was a draw.
Apparently, if my memory doesn't fail, there were enough Goths settling in Spain to leave a strong memory of being "Gothic" in the ruling class, even towards the end of the reconquista.
I am curious as to how and why the descendancy from the Goths would entitle anyone to a better seat at a Catholic meeting in the 15th century...
Me too, and I am very sorry for not remembering the source. Take it as you will.
Last edited:
I have met this weird search for a Visigoth past more than once and really fail to see its logic. Perhaps it dervies from the very fact that this "ruling class" that had so much power in Iberia derived their "noble" right straight from the times the Visigoths began this institution of mediaval feuds and their serfs. Not to say that many if much at all could have traced back their ancestry with any seriousness to some Visigoth nobleman, for such a venture would have been almost impossible after the 711 debacle and the utter destruction of any form of Visigoth overlordship in medieval Iberia. But, Visigoths had been the trendsetters of something that was equally popular all across Christian Europe. I would not doubt that the inmense majority of post Visigoth nobles that apeared amongst the small northern christian redoubts were little else but Hispano-Romans raising through the ranks by serving their warlord chief who himself eventually became "King" of a forming Christian "Kingdom".
I would say that claiming Visigoth noble ancestry was very nice for your pedigree amongst other nobles in Iberia and outside of it. And what started perhaps with a pious lie then turned after centuries of not so enlighted Christian Kingdoms in the north into some type of Dogma.
Not to say that there might not have been truly Visigoth noble descendants amongst the Reconquista crowd, but even they had lost their "special" status and surely intermarried with other Hispano-Roman nobles along the way to this XV Century meeting with the Swedes.
Interesting and funny story though
I would say that claiming Visigoth noble ancestry was very nice for your pedigree amongst other nobles in Iberia and outside of it. And what started perhaps with a pious lie then turned after centuries of not so enlighted Christian Kingdoms in the north into some type of Dogma.
Not to say that there might not have been truly Visigoth noble descendants amongst the Reconquista crowd, but even they had lost their "special" status and surely intermarried with other Hispano-Roman nobles along the way to this XV Century meeting with the Swedes.
Interesting and funny story though
I would say that very similar things one can find in other parts of the Europe. Lithuanian gentry claimed that they were descendants of Romans escaping from Italy; Polish gentry claimed Sarmats as their ancestors.
