Visigothic Spain

But I was talking about the origins of local nobility, and obviously the Plantagenet, being from the north, and arriving late to the scene, do not apply.

I was talking as a whole.

Actually, the question is how far north did the Basque bagauda reached to? It is clear that the cession of precisely Aquitania and Tarraconensis was meant largely to confront the Basque independence de facto, that it is well tracked archaeologicaly in the south. But I have no data regarding the north.

So from the Visigoths to the Basque.

I think about culture, once you reached Bordeaux, don't expect much Gascons or anything similar.

I knew you would do, because your aim seems not to reach the truth but to fight for your truth. It's self-evident that Eleanor is an exception, maybe because she wasn't Frankish and therefore Salic law did not apply.

Ironicaly, I was thinking this of you. You're not looking for the truth but for your truth.

Aquitaine was still using the Roman law and not the Frankish law I'm pretty sure. That's why she was able to held her title alone.

It's an absurd comment. This is my own hand-made careful and colorful reproduction of another Rh- map seen in a book of Cavalli-Sforza. (grey areas are mountains and came with the original map I scanned for this and other works). It's obvious that Basques, Gascons and a few nearby areas share the strongest Rh- concentration. Then you also find it in a few Eastern European pockets (and in Scotland). Anyhow this is not strange because it seems that Eastern Europe is more "native" than Central Europe, and Rh- is a typically European trait (absent in East Asia and Native America and less common in Africa). But modern genetics have left blood-types studies (too limited) in a secondary plane. Look at this map of Cavalli-Sforza on European Principal Component 5 (often dubbed "Basque"): It's evident that Gascony/Aquitaine strongly shares this (and other) genetic traits with the Basque Country proper.

Thanks I know we have a strong -Rh concentration. I never stated the opposite. I just had to look at school when we had to give our blood types to the teachers (who told us our region had a strong proportion).

Well, you haven't yet told me what they teach you about the story of Gascony with the French plan of studies. Is it focused in pan-French concepts and sometimes inaccuracies? I bet it is. France is not less chauvinist than Spain.

We learn we had a different culture that Caesar fixed to the Garonne river has borderline. Then about the revolt against Charlemagne and finally about the Plantagenets... those are the most important event in the local history.

The French history isn't complete anyway when we learn it, it's very centered on the 20th century. Most Frenchies barely know of Philip II or Louis IX even.

Yet, we know WWI, WWII, the war between communists and nationalists in China and the USSR pretty well.

Mostly there are very few Basque historians and their work has not enough resonance. Of course, there can be a few that may tend to exaggerate in a chauvinistic manner but I rather think thay fall short. For instance, the most prestigious Basque scholar of the early 20th century, Father Barandiaran, often gave Latin or Romance origins to terms that are not likely to have that origin. The complex of inferiority towards Latin culture is deeply encrusted after so many years of foreign domination. I can tell.

When it comes to local history, I trust the locals the least. No offense.

I often prefer neutral sources.

Sure that you're right at this. And Romance influence, specially Occitan should not be ignored. Yet the peculiarity of the region remains, once we go beyond those trees that don't let us see the forest.

The region does have its own identity, but it's a different one than the Basque country has.

It's Gascony, and it's closely linked to the French identity, we just can't deny that.

I was thinking in another fruit and tree. My English! Then in Basque is Itxaurrondo (intxaur is walnut) and in Castilian is nogal (but it's not any common surname, Intxaurrondo is a surname and a toponym,), quite simmilar to Gascon. There are a lot of places over there called Noguera, that obviously must be forest of walnut trees, modern Spanish: nocedal, Basque: intxaurraga (also a common surname).

That name is VERY common in Gascony. We are legions here, believe it.

I think that walnut trees are common in the Pyrenees, it's just the romanization of the original name what you're talking about. As I say there are lots of Noguera, Noceda, Intxaurrondo and Intxaurraga south of the Pyrenees. I don't see why you have to get any Celtic connection for that. Have trees started to speak languages and I haven't noticed? Do you have any strange theory on walnut trees coming with the Celts?

I was talking of the etymologic form of the name, not of the tree itself :rant:.

Mind you, despite being Celtic, the Gaulish language was closely related to the Latin (they were so close the Romans had to sent their messages in Greek and not Latin because the Gauls could read latin easily). You can google Gaulish language again, but I'm sure of that so I won't check.

Gascon being a romance language, the etymologic roots of the name Nogues could have some Celtic (Gaulish) part in it. That's what I'm talking about.
 

Edited by Exarchus

Thanks for re-focusing the topic, El Cid. I'd say that Visigothic influence is minor (as I stated before) but on a few things:

• They serve as ideological precendent for the concept of Spain, this reference is important in the northern Spanish states of Leon and Catalonia, specially in the first one.
  
• They left a large bunch of Visigothic or Gothicied aristocrats on both sides of the Pyrenees (except for the Basque areas).

Their eventual creation of the first ever Spanish state is a precedent that we should not underweight. True that originally their domain was wider than the peninsula but eventually the Franks corrected that to their favor.

Yes. Next time, I will try to open new topics as the discussion falls far from the original one. For instance I could haveopened a topic on Gascony, another on Occitania and finally one of the Plantagenets for Exarchus to monologue about them. 

Originally posted by Maju Yes. Next time, I will try to open new topics as the discussion falls far from the original one. For instance I could haveopened a topic on Gascony, another on Occitania and finally one of the Plantagenets for Exarchus to monologue about them.

It takes two to argue . Hardly a monologue then.... I assume I could look for dictionnaries and post the definition of monologue and prove you wrong with examples from this thread though.... .
�

Well, if you want to exclude it, so be it. But I consider it's relevant to our history.

I would say, from a social and cultural point of view, the Romans and French were the most important then... before even the original Aquitanians, just looking at our laws and language is already a big hint.

I have read sources where the Visigothic numbers in spain were closer to 10-12%, but that will always be debatable.

 

The upper central meseta where they concentrated became a focal point not long after the start of the reconquest; therefore the influence in modern spain is greater than Maju suggest, imo. These settlers displaced much of their conquered neighbors to the south.

 

Linguistically, small but not insignificant. I agree with Maju in that politically, their most important legacy resides.

The Visigiths while certainly aristocrats, became settlers as Spain became their home. Aristocrats tend to forcibly reproduce with pre-existing lower classes.

 

After King Reccared converted the remnant to Catholocism in 589, intermarriage became legal and continued for over 120 years prior to the moorish invasion.

 

At 10% you are looking at somewhere between 100-150K, which is very plausible. (History of the Goths by Herwig Wolfram). I will concede that this number is debatable, but most sources I have come accross suggest something closer to 10%.

 

The Visigoths did not stay long in Dacia. Looking at Gotlander, the assumed origin, HG2 seems to be the predominate marker in this area.

 

Hg2 makes up a good 10-15% in the maps you have recently posted.

 

They ruled most of  the penninsula for 300 years, they settled regions that became crucial in the reconquest of spain.  This propogated their influence disproportionately as well!

I think you discount their influence genetically too lightly.

 

Clearly, it is a minority influence, but greater than 3%.

I suggest you read the source I have given you and you may change your perspective.

Originally posted by Aragones Thank you all, I have enjoyed inmensely your discussion about the Goths, Franks, Basques, Romans, Catalans etc... very interesesting. New dna studies will bring light into the real interaction of people and ideas of the south of what is now France and the north of what is now Spain.

Not actually. Most of DNA is of Paleolithic origin and, while other migrations may have moved a few pieces around, there haven't been any major migrations affecting Iberia. The most important one would be the Neolithic Mediterranean one that brought most of the Mediterranean genotype to the peninsula (anyhow it's only about 15%, though a small part of it could have come during the Muslim period too). No other migration seems truly significant, except maybe some (small) colonization by "Franks" (Occitans) in the Middle Ages, which would be very hard to distinguish from the original genotype. The 3% of Hg3 is rather odd but can account for several sources: Celtic migrations in the Bronze and Iron ages, Jewish and Arab inmigration, the Goths and other Germanic tribes and even Slavic slaves imported by Muslim states.