QuoteReplyTopic: Visigothic Spain Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 14:29
The Visigoths(western Goths) invaded and settled Spain around 407 AD
and formed a kingdom that to its extent in 500AD included about half of
modern France as well. In the early 500's they lost in a battle against
Clovis the Frankish king and lost this territory. Later on in 711
berber Tariq ibn Ziyad inflicted a crushing defeat to the Visigoths in
the battle of Guadalete and killied king Roderic. Did they leave any particular impact in modern
Spanish society besides Germanic genetics?
Edited by vulkan02
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Actually Germanic genetics was probably their less relevant impact.
Their demic apportation was at most of 5% and probably much less.
One thing to take in account when dealing with both the Visigothic and
Frankish kingdoms, is that they weren't technically invaders but foederati of
the Roman Empire. In this sense it would be correct to talk of them as
succesor states of Rome. The Visigoths in particular, a powerful tribe,
had been sent to Aquitaine and Tarraconensis to deal with the "ilegal"
invaders (Sueves, Vandals and Alans) and with the Basque rebellion -
and also to get them out of Italy.
Unlike the Franks, who were better integrating with provincial Roman
society, the Visigoths kept for a long time separated law codes for
Goths and Romans and also were for long time adherents to the Arrian
heressy, unlike their subjects. This probably weakened the cohesion of
the Visigothic state. Another weakness was the elective system of the
Visigothic monarchy, that propitiated civil strife in the interregnums.
But anyhow, specially in the later period, once lost Aquitaine and
moved their capital to Toledo, they settled the bases of the future
unified Spanish state. They were able to annihilate rather quickly to
Vandals and Alans and, sometime later they annexed the Sueve domain of
Galaecia too. What they were never able was of conquering the Basques,
though they tried once and again. All their royal chronicles end with
this delusional prase: et domuit Vascones
(and subjugated the Basques), a clear notice that they never actually
achieved it. When Muslims invaded, the Visigoth monarch Rodrigo
(Roderick) was still trying to subjugate the Basques in a new rutinary
campaign of prestige and had to rush to confront the Moors at
Guadalete.
The Visigothic state was centered in two institutions: a Council of
Gothic nobility and the Sinod of (Catholic) Bishops of Toledo. Under
their rule, Latin, classic and vulgar, probably consolidated its
presence in the less romanized areas and Roman Christianity also got
consolidated.
But surely the most relevant legacy is the Gothic roots and ideology
that they left among thenobility of the surviving Christian states on
both sides of the Pyrenees: Asturias-Leon-Castile in the west,
Catalonia-Aragon in the east and Aquitaine and the other Occitanian
states in the north. Only Basque society, that had managed to say
independent and didn't have a well developed feudalism anyhow, escaped
that Gothic legacy.
Eventually, as the Spanish Christian kingdoms gained strength, the
connections with the ancient Gothic state and its institutions became
very relevant ideologically. Hence the role of Santiago, heir of the
diocese of Mrida (Emerita Augusta) and the prestige of the latter
conquest of Toledo, the former Visigothic capital, by Castile-Leon, the
regional hegemon.
In the north also, Occitanian nobilty prided of their Visigothic roots
and that, along with popular ethnic diferences with France proper, made
them to be unruly and adopt heressies such as Catharism.
For the rest their importance was rather limited. In secondary school
we always skipped that period: from Rome we jumped almost unnoticeably
to Muslim invasion and the Reconquista. Though I know via comics that
in older times they used to have to memorize sequentially the names of
Goth kings, what, due to the obsolete and exotic nature of their names
(such as Leovigild or Wamba), made it a dificult task for kids and a
puny item for comic books that satyrized the typical Spanish family and
their quotidian problems.
Hmm very insightful information there....I know this might be a stupid
question because i havent read your article on the Basques yet.. but
are they in any way related to the Cantabrians? Ive also read somewhere
that the Byzantines conducted campaings against the Visigoths is this
true?
You say they spoke Latin... surely they must have primarily spoken
their native language as well, have they left any vocabulary at all to
the modern language?
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Cantabrians were a pre-Romanic tribe that is not talked about after
Caesar defeats them and forces them to live in the valleys and not
anymore in te mountains. Yet in some maps you see their name along with
that of Vascones in the independent tribal Area around the Bay of
Biscay. I don't know why this happens. Visigoths did set a Mark of
Cantabria, in the limit with Basque lands (modern Rioja or norther
Burgos) and that gave the name of Sierra de Cantabria
to a mountain chain in a clearly Basque area. But apart of that, I
don't know why they would be related at all: Goths were Romano-Germans,
while Cantabrians were a native nation. The modern region of Cantabria
never bear that name before 1980s, it was part of Castile (initially
divided between Castile and Navarre) and it was known as Castilla de Santillana and later (19th century) as Santander. In Gothic times it was probably out of their control but I have no reference of any mention to Cantabri at all, only the name Mark of Cantabria, as I said, a Gothic military district in the frontier.
Byantines under Justinian conquered parts of Baetica in their campaigns
to re-unify the Roman Empire. I'm not sure now if they intervened in a
dynastic dispute or it was an actual conquest attempt. I know that
Visigoths were allied with Ostrogoths and Burgundians, so guess that
this was part of the process of destruction of the Romano-Gothic bloc
by Byzantines and, secondarily, Franks. Surely experts in Byzantine or
Frankish history can tell you better.
I guess that Goths spoke Gothic among themselves, at least for some
time, but the actual oficial language of the kingdom was Latin and all
chronicles and acts are in that language. The Catholic Church, as
mentioned before, played a very important role in giving structure to
the state and that obviously kept Latin alive and kicking, though
obviously becoming vulgar dialects among the people. Unlike in France
maybe, nobody outside the Gothic nobility spoke German: it was a Latin
state under a Gothic aristocracy, that's all.
The Byzantines did indeed intervene in Baetica at the invitation of an
erstwhile Visigothic king who was mired in a civil war. Incredibly a
total force of 2,000 troops under a nonagenarian general took a
surprisingly large portion of Spain, with a substantial number of Roman
aristocrats seeking safety within the borders of the new province. The
conquest did not last, however, within 50 years the last Byzantine
stronghold on the Iberian peninsula had been conquered.
In the north also, Occitanian nobilty prided of their Visigothic roots
and that, along with popular ethnic diferences with France proper, made
them to be unruly and adopt heressies such as Catharism.
Occitan (please, once again, spell our name correctly) nobility was not Visigothic but Frankish.
And Catharism had nothing to do at all with the Visigoths at all, and
it was confined to Languedoc mostly and didn't spread to Occitania as a
whole. And the Languedocian nobility was not catharist at all, at least
not that I know, yet they protected the cathars. The Count of Toulouse
(the Toulouse county being Languedoc) was one of the most catholic
dynasty, this of the first crusade.
In the north also, Occitanian nobilty prided of their Visigothic roots
and that, along with popular ethnic diferences with France proper, made
them to be unruly and adopt heressies such as Catharism.
Occitan (please, once again, spell our name correctly) nobility was not Visigothic but Frankish.
All I've read is the opposite. So please, give me evidence. Of course
that Frankish kings tried once and again to impose foreign dukes and
counts but middle nobility was local and they did pride of their Gothic
ancestry... at least until the Albigensian Crusade strip them from
their lands and lifes.
And I don't know why Occitanian shouldn't be spelled that way in
English, I know perfectly how it is in Romance but English follows
diferent rules.
And Catharism had nothing to do at all with the Visigoths at all, and
it was confined to Languedoc mostly and didn't spread to Occitania as a
whole. And the Languedocian nobility was not catharist at all, at least
not that I know, yet they protected the cathars. The Count of Toulouse
(the Toulouse county being Languedoc) was one of the most catholic
dynasty, this of the first crusade.
The Count of Tolouse himself was pressed hard to renounce to his Cathar
beliefs. He did in hope of being able with that maneouvre to keep his
regional power but anyhow the region was spoiled.
All I've read is the opposite. So please, give me evidence. Of course
that Frankish kings tried once and again to impose foreign dukes and
counts but middle nobility was local and they did pride of their Gothic
ancestry... at least until the Albigensian Crusade strip them from
their lands and lifes.
Come on, the Dukes of Aquitaine were the Plantagenets, who were also
kings of England. They were from the Frankisn aristocraty. Before that,
the house of Poitiers was their relatives too. Raymond of Poitiers was
Eleanor's uncle.
As for the Counts of Toulouse, they are tracked to Frdlon whose
origin aren't clear. But he was apointed Count of Toulouse by the
Carolingian local Kings, Peppin I of Aquitaine (Toulouse was part of
Aquitaine back in those time). Peppin I was a direct relative of
Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne and led a revolt against him
allied with the vikings. And Charles I defeated him but left Frdlon
installing his dynasty of counts at the heard of Toulouse. Only the
Counts of Gothia could have claimed descending from the Visigoths and
they were defeated and absorbed in the County of Toulouse.
To end up with Provence, it was called back then the Kingdom of Burgundy and was part of the Holy Roman Empire.
And I don't know why Occitanian shouldn't be spelled that way in
English, I know perfectly how it is in Romance but English follows
diferent rules.
Because it's Occitan in both English and French, that's the way it is and there is nothing about it.
Myself being born in Toulouse, I'm well placed to tell that. Just
google Occitan and you'll see it's the correct spelling. So please,
stop butchering our name.
The Count of Tolouse himself was pressed hard to renounce to his Cathar
beliefs. He did in hope of being able with that maneouvre to keep his
regional power but anyhow the region was spoiled.
The Count of Toulouse defended the Cathars that's for sure. But can you prove he was himself a cathar?
He was spared by the Inquisition, he had to give up his succession to
the King of France, but the inquisition didn't kill him like they
killed the Cathars.
Talking of the Occitan aristocracy, Raymond VI of Toulouse was the son
of Louis VI. You wanted a proof the Occitan aristocracy was Frankish
and not Visigothic, you have it.
On the rest, notice that I said that the middle and low Occitan nobility
was or prided of Visigothic ancestry. It's well known that princes
(kings, dukes, counts...) do continuously marry with foreigners of
their class, so we can hardly talk of their nationality. But it's also
clear that for the adequate excercise of their rule, they need a
consensus among the locals, specially among those with some power, and
these were the low nobility.
Anyhow, I've made a little research on the origins of the main Occitan houses:
The post-Carolingian Dukes of Aquitaine, occasionaly styled themselves as kings,
were descendant of Ranulf I of Poitiers, of unclear origin but possibly
son of Count Gerard of Auvergne. The locality of these original feudal
domains, seem to point to a Visigothic ascendance or at least strong
local integration.
The same can be said about the Counts of Tolouse: their indpendent
lineage starts with Fredelon (Freddon), son of Fulcoald of Rouerge and
succesor to Bernard of Septimania. It's quite noticeable that the
Counts of Tolouse did not only owe feudal vassallage to the Kings of
France but also to the Counts of Barcelona (later Kings of Aragon), to
the Holy Roman Emperor and eventually to the Kings of England as well.
Raymond de Trencavel, the main Paladin of the Albigensians was also
nephew of Raymond of Tolouse. While I don't have clear evidence that
Raymond of Tolouse was a Cathar himself, it is so obvious that he did
defend his subjects and his states as far as he was able. It is also
obvious that the Albigensian Crusade, famous for its incredible
brutality, was a war of France against Occitania, at least as much as a
war of the Papacy against the heretics. It's result is well kown: apart
of the massacres, the lands of the Occitan nobility went to the French
crown and aristocrats, but the Occitan resentment on foreign imposition
didn't totally die and that would fuel the adoption of Protestantism
later on.
Maju I like the point where you said the Franks weren't truely invaders but foederati, a point mostly ignored by many general historians. But I do think the Visigoths were infact invaders. If you look at the map of western europe after the fall of the western roman empire, you'll notice that infact the Franks shielded the last roman kingdom of Syagrius while the south was overran by Visigoths and burgundians. In reality the Franks were much more integrated into northern France, having been there now for hundreds of years.10%- 15% of french vocabulary is of old frankish, and amasingly most agricultural tools of old french are of old frankish origin. Meaning some Franks were infact integrated into northern France prior to the fall of the roman empire. It is not suprising that the romans even recorded the Franks foederati as Galli. I really have some doubts that the Franks invaded northern France, i'm more inclined to believe the Franks somehow took control of Syagrius kingdom, because they believed they were the rightful heir. Immediately after they launched a campaign against the Visigoths. This campaign has another nature, all goths were pushed out the area. they were trying to expel the burgundians but they weren't sucessful at that. This to me indicate that the people of France didn't quite view the Franks as foreign but they perceived the Visigoths and the burgundi as a foreign invading force. there is also a tendency to confuse salian and ripudian Franks.
I agree partly with you, Quetzacoatl. Franks were no doubt much better
integrated in Roman structure and they can hardly be defined as
invaders. Yet the Visigoths in Aquitania and Tarraconensis were put
there by the Romans too. True that they needed to make some deal to get
them out of Italy but it is also true that Rome had no means of
fighting the invasion of the other "ilegal" tribes (Sueves, Vandals and
Alans) or the Basque independence de facto. So they gave command to the Goths as foederati of
the Empire. After that, with or without the like of the local
populations, Visigoths became the legal arm of Rome in SW Europe until
the Western Empire itself ceased to exist with Odoacer, when they can
be considered a succesor state along with that of the Franks.
Can you shed some light on the diferences among Ripuarians and Salians? I'm not knowledgeable.
Maju, can you explain me then if the Count of Toulouse had Visigothic
roots, how could he be the son of a King of France? I'm talking of
Albigensian Crusade. Raymond was not only the son of Louis VI (Louis
the Fat) but also a cousin of Philip II Augustus therefore.
As for the vassility to the County of Barcelona, I would like you to
back it. I know he tried to build an alliance with Aragon and not
Barcelona.... and with Henry II (Duke of Aquitaine and King of England)
against the King of France but both failed. The Count of Toulouse was a
direct vassal of the King of France.
And what about the Plantagenets? They were Visigoths too?
From wikipedia: they say after the Visigoths (ended up in 509), the
Merovigians took the title... the Merovingians were Franks and direct
relatives to Clovis.
The lineage from the second links shows nothing apart the Counts of
Toulouse descends from the Merovingians that replaced the Visigoths
after their defeat.
3rd link, Ranulf of Poitiers was a descendant of Louis the Pious, Charlemagne's son. Enough said.
4th link, lineage again. + I see Louis the Pious, Pippin II, Carloman and many famous names in... all Frankish aristocracy.
Last link? Relevance? I see nothing in backing any claim the Occitan aristocracy was related to the Visigoths.
If you would have checked the references, I wouldn't have to copy and paste:
In the Middle Ages the family of St-Gilles, Counts of Toulouse, was one of the most powerful in Europe.
At the time of the outbreak of the wars, the ruler was
Ramon VI.
One of his several wives was Jeanne of England, which made Ramon
son-in-law of Henry II and Elenour of Aquitaine, and brother-in-law to
Richard I (the Lionheart) and King John. He was also related to the King of France, and to the
King of Aragon.
Ramon VI held his lands under the feudal system from a number of his
relatives. Most of these lands were held as a vassal of the King of
Aragon, but some (notably Provence) he held from the Holy Roman
Emperor, some from the King of France and some from the King of
England.
http://www.languedoc-france.info/1210_ramon.htm
If you look at this other related link:
http://www.languedoc-france.info/19020106_lineage.htm , you will see
that the Counts of Tolouse, starting from Fredelon and ending with the
Raymond VII are all son or brother of each other, though they are
married with diferent princesses: Emma of Provence, Almodis de la
Marche, Constance of France (daughter of Louis VII), Jeanne of England,
Eleanor of Aragon and Sancha of Aragon.
Regarding Aragon, it is not Zaragoza: originally it's a small Pyrenean
county around Jaca that, after the first partition of Navarre
(Pamplona), already united to Catalonia (Barcelona) and the other
sud-Pyrenean counties, starts styling as kingdom.
Zaragoza was then the capital of an important Muslim taifa (emirate)
and wouldn't be annexed to Aragon till later. In any case, the story of
the Crown of Aragon is the story of Catalonia since the 11th century.
But it's you who doesn't read me, I've read your links, and I see
nowhere, even in your cut/paste, where they affirm they were Visigoths,
on the contrary they were direct relatives of the French monarchy like
most French princes, counts and dukes.
And I see nowhere how the Count of Toulouse was a vassal of the Count
of Barcelona. The Count of Barcelona was the same man than King of
Aragon but that was to the title of King of Aragon the vassality went
to and not to the one of Count of Barcelona.
And yet, his lord was the King of France, he tried to own himself a
vassal to the King of Aragon (he did the same with the King of England)
but both failed when the King of Aragon was killed at Muret and when
Henry II rather tried to conquer Toulouse than protecting it (and the
Count of Toulouse had to call for the French king help against Henry
II).
From wikipedia: they say after the Visigoths (ended up in 509), the
Merovigians took the title... the Merovingians were Franks and direct
relatives to Clovis.
The lineage from the second links shows nothing apart the Counts of
Toulouse descends from the Merovingians that replaced the Visigoths
after their defeat.
3rd link, Ranulf of Poitiers was a descendant of Louis the Pious, Charlemagne's son. Enough said.
4th link, lineage again. + I see Louis the Pious, Pippin II, Carloman and many famous names in... all Frankish aristocracy.
Last link? Relevance? I see nothing in backing any claim the Occitan aristocracy was related to the Visigoths.
Well, I was replaying to your previous post, when you wrote this one.
That the Merovingians or Carolingians took over doesn't mean that they
kept in control forever. The lineages of the princes in the 10th, 11th
and 12th centuries seem clearly local and by no means descendant from
the Frankish royal families, except maybe by maternal lineage.
Notice the speculative nature of the sentence and the clearly maternal
lineage, that for some reason you decided to ignore. I'm no machoist
but the fact is that in these times (and much more modernly too)
aristocratic marriages were normally a pact of allegiance and maternal
lineages were considered somehow inferior or secondary.
The last link was posted to inform the fact that Tolouse was related to many neighbour states, not just France.
The refernece on Occitan nobility (in general, maybe not the counts but
the simple knights) priding Visigothic inheritance I took from the
following book on Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade: Los Ctaros
of Jean-Pierre Leduc (apparently it's been published first in Spanish,
as that title figures as the original one), 2002, Ed. Crculo Latino.
If you can't affirm for sure the roots of the Occitan nobility, don't affirm it's Visigoth.
Having myself a Gascon name with both influences, I wouldn't make
myself more Franks than I am, but the aristocrary of Occitania was far
more Frankish than Visigothics. I hardly see how it can be even
contested. The Visigothic ruling class was contained to Spain
Nord-Catalonia mainly and replaced by a new Frankish one.
Hell, even Fredegund made a Frankish king to murder his visigothic wife.
And I agree the maternal lineage was considered inferior, but Raymond
VI the count of Toulouse during the Albigensian Crusade was the son of
a King of France himself.......
I concede the Aragon issue because it was my error to mention
anachronistically Barcelona instead of Aragon as the source mentioned
corrctly. Anyhow the Count of Barcelona and the King of Aragon were the
same person and Barcelona was a lot richer and much more central to his
power. This is a case as that of Prussia, where the center of the state
was in Brandemburg and the royal title came from elsewhere (Prussia) -
or the case of Sicily (Naples) or Sardinia (Savoy) too.
Where do you get that the Visigothic ruling class was displaced and
replaced prior to the Albigensian Crusade? I'm not talking about a few
strategic offices but about general landlordship. The fact that
Aquitaine and Occitaine remained unruly and working for their own
center of power and even for an independent state rather weights
against your assumptions. You say that Goths were restricted to
Catalonia but you make no especific reference for your claim. In the
best case you should have added Gothia (Languedoc) to those
particularly Gothizied places. But I think that the situation was
rather general in all Occitania and medieval Aquitaine (north of the
Garonne). Of course, there was surely also a popular ethnic diference
in all those places, in comparison to strongly Gaulish France proper,
that pre-dated German migrations and that explains better the diference
of Romance languages due to ethnical background but that's even more
dificult to study, specially as Gauls (Celts) were also present in the
south (Auvergne, Northern Aquitaine) and Roman sources are not very
interested in such ethnical diferences.
Furthermore, Jan Dhont's book The Upper Middle Age (original title: Das frche Mittelalter),
comments on the Caroligian state that its central consolidated domains
were France-Franconia, included what later would be called
Lothairingia, all these nuclear Frankish lands were refered at earlier
times as Neustria and Austria, the well assimilated Alamania (later
Swabia) and Burgundy and, once conquered, also Saxony.
Instead, among the unruly regions Friesland, Aquitaine, Brittany and Vasconia are mentioned. Regarding Aquitaine, he says: Aquitaine
preserved along the centuries their own aristocracy, that configured
the substance of a truly independent people. In the second half of the
8th century and, specially, under Charlemagne's domain, the Frankish
state tried energically to weaken in Aquitaine those national political
forces and sent there a major staff, not at all insignificant, of
Frankish officers. But this measure showed itself to be not sufficient.
Aquitaine continued being, even for most of the 9th century, a great
rebel bloc, and the adversaries of Frankish central power could always
find adepts in its territory.
So, you tell me: where does that Aquitanian unruly aristocracy came
from? If they were Frankish, as in Neustria, they would not be so
rebellious... and anyhow the passage shows that they were local. They
could only come from two sources: Visigothic or Roman aristocracy - or
both. Most likely the Gothic element was dominant.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum