Print Page | Close Window

"Moors" and southwestern Europe.

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27168
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 12:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: "Moors" and southwestern Europe.
Posted By: fantasus
Subject: "Moors" and southwestern Europe.
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 10:17
Much of southwestern Europe, Span, Portugal and Meditteranean isles, were conquered by arab/northafrican muslims or "moors". Later they were "reconquered" by christians.
How close did they come to be part of the souther-eastrern cultural sphere of meditteranean, rather than part of "western european sphere"? As far as I know, the contemporary languages is romance, except Malta. A part of the populations of Iberian peninsula (a minority) fled the inquisition.  One gets the impression though the situation was very different from northern africa and middle east.



Replies:
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 11:46
The Moors conquered very much all of the Iberian Peninsula in the 7th century less the mountainous regions of the northern coast. They were a mixture of Arabs and Berbers; with the former being the ruling elite and the latter being the bulk of the army.

In the regions that they conquered,  they rebuilt the Roman cities abandoned during the Germanic invasions, and developed a flourishing civilization known as Al Andalus.

During the first 2 centuries, Moorish rule was relatively tolerant towards Christians and Jews; provided that they paid more taxes; which made many of them convert to Islam.
In the population of Al Andalus, Arabs formed a very small minority; Berbers made up to 20% of the population, and the rest of the Muslim population were Muladies, Iberian converts to Islam. Of course there were also Christians living under Muslim rule (Morzárabes), and Jews.
During the 10th century, a new wave of recently-converted Berbers arrived from North Africa and founded new dynasties. They were less tolerant than their Arab forebears and persecutions of Christians and Jews began, causing many of them to flee to the Christian-controlled north.
The Christian kingdoms began to gain power and influence from then on; while the Muslim civilization started to decay.
After forming a political alliance, the Christians reconquered little by little the territory occupied by the Muslims; until the last Muslim kingdom in Granada fell in 1492.

After the Catholic reconquista, most of the Muslims converted to Christianity (many of them could have ancestors who were Catholic converts anyway). They were known as Moriscos.
In the height of the inquistion, they either had to give up all their Muslim-influenced customs and try to blend in with the Christian community as much as possible; or they had to leave. Many of them were expelled in the early 1600.

Regarding language, the official language of Al Andalus was Arabic;  yet after the reconquista, Latin and Castillian Spanish was once again established as the de-facto language. Those who spoke Arabic as a first language had to learn Spanish fast, or face expulsion for being accused of a Morisco.
Nevertheless, the Arabic legacy is very visible in the 4000-5000 Arabic loan words in modern Spanish. Castillian architecture is also strongly influenced by Islam. Many cathedrals in Andalucía and Aragon were converted from mosques.

Due to the inquistion mentality and the dictatorship of the Catholic Church in Spain that lasted until the death of Franco; many Spaniards have been brainwashed to deny and even to despise any Arabic influence in modern Spain.
They do not realise that we are living off our Moorish heritage to a great extent; for the very fact that every year millions of tourists visit the Alhambra in Granada, the Great Mosque of Córdoba; and medieval cities such as Toledo famous for its "heritage of 3 cultures"!









Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 16:12
Originally posted by calvo

 


Due to the inquistion mentality and the dictatorship of the Catholic Church in Spain that lasted until the death of Franco; many Spaniards have been brainwashed to deny and even to despise any Arabic influence in modern Spain.

They do not realise that we are living off our Moorish heritage to a great extent; for the very fact that every year millions of tourists visit the Alhambra in Granada, the Great Mosque of Córdoba; and medieval cities such as Toledo famous for its "heritage of 3 cultures"!



 
 
 
I recently encountered one of these ultra-nationalist Spaniards venomously denied what you've been written about Arab & Moors cultural and genetic influences in Spain past & present.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 16:17

Many Spaniards don't want to recognize the muslim influence in theirs culture. They see themselves as Christians (Westerners) that fought the hordes of sarracens and defeated them, cleaning up Spain afterwards. They also deny that many Jews got converted and assimilated to the Spanish population, so these times most Spanish people have some Jewish ancestry (Spain had the largest Jewish community in Europe; about 10% of the population. And only half them left, the rest assimilated)

There is no better way to offend a Spaniard that remember them they not only have Iberian and European ancestors but also Semitic: Phoenicians, Berbers, Jews and Arabs.

-------------


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 19:04
Originally posted by pebbles


 
I recently encountered one of these ultra-nationalist Spaniards venomously denied what you've been written about Arab & Moors cultural and genetic influences in Spain past & present.
 
Luckily, these Ultra-nationalists are becoming an ever-decreasing minority.
Most of them belong to the older generation who had been educated by the school system of Franco.
Today, you'll find these opinions more prevlent among the Spanish upper classes, who have always been closely allied to the most reactionary wings of the Catholic Church such as Opus Dei.
 
Still, there are a host of Far-right Spanish historians such as Cesar Vidal, Frederico Jimenez Losantos, and Pio Molla who have written a handful of books and articles for the whole purpose of denying Spain's Moorish past to the point of redicule.
They certainly do have a horde of followers, but most mainstream Spanish intellectuals (of both left and centre-right) regard them as little more than lunatics. Wacko
 
 


Posted By: Beatriz
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 02:17
Most of the Spanish Muslims were Iberians converted into Islam as the Berbers were a minority that made up the militar class and the arabians were a minority that made up the ruling class. The vast majority of the populations were themselves Iberians. That's why geneticaly the northafrican markers in Spain are even lower than in Albania, Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, and so on see http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

As for the cultural the legacy was bigger, specially in the South but not beyond buildings, some names of city and words. Iberians can be Moorish culturally Speaking like Northafricans can be Roman as some Roman ruins are found there.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 02:32
Originally posted by pebbles

 I recently encountered one of these ultra-nationalist Spaniards venomously denied what you've been written about Arab & Moors cultural and genetic influences in Spain past & present.
 


This is denied because it's also exagerated to the max most of the times. Moorish influence both cultural and genetical was very little as was germanic influence. The bulk of the population was always iberian.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 05:21
The Arab Spain (Al-Andalus) (I use Arab here in the sense of Arab speaking) it is a lot more appreciated in Latin America than in Spain itself.
For many Latin Americans it is ridiculous and hard to understand the denial of obvious Arab influence in language, foods, customs, handcrafts and culture in general. This without denying the majoritary European influence in Spain that nobody denies. However, those Arab, Hebrew, Phoenician and Berber influences are for real and give a special flavor to Spain that should be appreciated. After all, Hispania is a phoenician word.


-------------


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 06:55

Phoenician and hebrew influence is not the same as "moorish", though one may discuss the relationships. Phoenicians and carthagians "colonised" parts of the iberian peninsula 1500 to 10000 years before arab conquest started in 711(?)

Probably there were great differences between provinces of mainland Spain, modern Portugal and  the Balearics when it comes to cultural impact. Perhaps there is even some impacts on the large western meditteranean isles (Corsika, Sicily, Sardinia) and locations ind Italian peninsula or elsewere on the meditteranean coasts.


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 08:11
Originally posted by O Anzol



This is denied because it's also exagerated to the max most of the times. Moorish influence both cultural and genetical was very little as was germanic influence. The bulk of the population was always iberian.



I disagree here.
Moorish influence here is MUCH greater than Germanic influence; judging by the pure fact that the Moors have left the Alhambra, the great Mosque of Córdoba, and the old city centres of many cities in Andalucía, Murcia, Extremadura, and Aragón. What about the 4000-5000 Arabic words in modern Spanish? Anything that begins with Al- has Arabic origin. Madrid was founded by Arabs.
What have the Goths and Visgoths left here? Most of them were assimilated into the Hispano-Roman population and did not leave any cultural influence of their own.

Culturally speaking, I reckon that the external influences (from strongest to weakest), come like this:
- Roman (obviously)
- Arabic
- Celtic
- Iberian and Celti-Iberian
- Germanic
- all the rest.... (Tartessios, Carthaginians etc)

Genetically speaking, I probably would agree that most Iberian genes are native; because in the case of any migration or colonization; the foreign settlers are always far smaller in number than the indigenous population.
This applies even to the Romans; who left the most profound cultural legacy. The population of the Iberian peninsula at the time of the Roman conquest was estimated at 4-5 million; and Italy had an estimated population of 6-7 million.
I very much doubt that the Romans had sent half the Italian population to colonise Spain!

Even within north Africans, whom many consider to be "Arabs", most of the genes are native rather than from the Arabia






Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 08:14
Originally posted by Beatriz

Most of the Spanish Muslims were Iberians converted into Islam as the Berbers were a minority that made up the militar class and the arabians were a minority that made up the ruling class. The vast majority of the populations were themselves Iberians. That's why geneticaly the northafrican markers in Spain are even lower than in Albania, Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, and so on see http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml


This explains why after the deportation of Moriscos; a rather significant amount of Iberian genes arrived in North Africa! Because many, if not most Moriscos were of Iberian descent.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 14:31
Originally posted by pinguin

The Arab Spain (Al-Andalus) (I use Arab here in the sense of Arab speaking) it is a lot more appreciated in Latin America than in Spain itself.
For many Latin Americans it is ridiculous and hard to understand the denial of obvious Arab influence in language, foods, customs, handcrafts and culture in general. This without denying the majoritary European influence in Spain that nobody denies. However, those Arab, Hebrew, Phoenician and Berber influences are for real and give a special flavor to Spain that should be appreciated. After all, Hispania is a phoenician word.
 
I don't know about 'Hispania' but any cultures that have their commonest rice dish described by a word that starts with a 'p' and has an 'l' in the middle have to have something in common.
Smile


-------------


Posted By: Beatriz
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 15:59
Originally posted by pinguin

The Arab Spain (Al-Andalus) (I use Arab here in the sense of Arab speaking) it is a lot more appreciated in Latin America than in Spain itself.
For many Latin Americans it is ridiculous and hard to understand the denial of obvious Arab influence in language, foods, customs, handcrafts and culture in general. This without denying the majoritary European influence in Spain that nobody denies. However, those Arab, Hebrew, Phoenician and Berber influences are for real and give a special flavor to Spain that should be appreciated. After all, Hispania is a phoenician word.

I agree with yoy about The arab influence in language, which is very clear and alive and I don't think that can't be denied. But I don't think nobody denies it either. After latin (94 per cent) the Arabian language influence comes second however the number of arabian words used in everyday Spanish are not many as a good number of them tend to designate realities of countryside life that do not exist anymore. So, even if 4000 or so are estimated... much less than that are actually used.

About foods, customs and handcrafts: I have never seen Spaniards trying to hide Moorish food or handcrafts, on the other way round they are kept as part of their own culture mixed with their own local touch. Pinguin I would like to ask you what Moorish customs are still alive in Spain and are trying to be hidden? I would be really curious to know.


You are right about the special flavour that the Moors and Jews left to our cities and sometimes toponimy and food. But I don't think that Spaniards try to hide it either, on the other way round, I would tend to think that they exploit it well and proper as in Granada or Córdoba.

Well now, I think I understand what you mean about Spaniards trying to hide the Moorish legacy... they probably refer to the genetic part as some north-Europeans and Americans despise them theoretically with the excuse that they are "half-moorish" genetically, which they are not. Is that what you mean?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 16:40
Spanish music, for instance, it has a strong "Moorish" influence. Moorish if you wish, because the founder of the Andalucian school of Music, Zyriab, was Persian. And almost all the Spanish "flavour" of Flamenco and other exotic rythms can be traced to him. With respect to Jews you may know half of them never left Spain, so Spain is also Hebrew descendent. You may also know that some the Jews were in the very foundation of Spanish language and that some of the more famous Spanish writers were conversos

-------------


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 16:52
Originally posted by Beatriz

 
 
Originally posted by pinguin

 
 
For many Latin Americans it is ridiculous and hard to understand the denial of obvious Arab influence in language, foods, customs, handcrafts and culture in general.
 
 
 

I agree with you about  the arab influence in language, which is very clear and alive and I don't think that can't be denied. But I don't think nobody denies it either.

About foods, customs and handcrafts: I have never seen Spaniards trying to hide Moorish food or handcrafts, on the other way round they are kept as part of their own culture mixed with their own local touch. Pinguin I would like to ask you what Moorish customs are still alive in Spain and are trying to be hidden? I would be really curious to know.


 
 
Maybe not IRL,it's online nationalistic Spaniards would deny and try to hide it ( or downplay contributions of Arabs & Moors & Jews )  from uninformed readers of factual history LOL
 
Sure,Spaniards are mostly Iberian heritage but they have a significant " non-Euro " genetic component.There are DNA studies on it,google has a listing some credible researches.
 
 
 


Posted By: Beatriz
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 22:06
Originally posted by pebbles

Originally posted by calvo

 


Due to the inquistion mentality and the dictatorship of the Catholic Church in Spain that lasted until the death of Franco; many Spaniards have been brainwashed to deny and even to despise any Arabic influence in modern Spain.

They do not realise that we are living off our Moorish heritage to a great extent; for the very fact that every year millions of tourists visit the Alhambra in Granada, the Great Mosque of Córdoba; and medieval cities such as Toledo famous for its "heritage of 3 cultures"!



 
 
 
I recently encountered one of these ultra-nationalist Spaniards venomously denied what you've been written about Arab & Moors cultural and genetic influences in Spain past & present.
 
 
 
 
 
 

where? in another forum?


Posted By: Beatriz
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 22:15
Originally posted by fantasus

Phoenician and hebrew influence is not the same as "moorish", though one may discuss the relationships. Phoenicians and carthagians "colonised" parts of the iberian peninsula 1500 to 10000 years before arab conquest started in 711(?)

Probably there were great differences between provinces of mainland Spain, modern Portugal and  the Balearics when it comes to cultural impact. Perhaps there is even some impacts on the large western meditteranean isles (Corsika, Sicily, Sardinia) and locations ind Italian peninsula or elsewere on the meditteranean coasts.


Yes, Phoenicians and Carthagians went to Spain much before Islam; Carthaginians stayed around the coast in commercial factories, like the Greeks.


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 22:33
Well now, I think I understand what you mean about Spaniards trying to hide the Moorish legacy... they probably refer to the genetic part as some north-Europeans and Americans despise them theoretically with the excuse that they are "half-moorish" genetically, which they are not. Is that what you mean?
 
to be honest... at this day and age, after all the scientific discoveries of human genotypes and fenotypes that have completely refuted the 19th century ideas of "race"; if any human being is still obsessed with the idea that being of pure "European" blood makes one superior or inferior...., he would probably be suffering from some form of mental illness. Confused
I can't understand why some people see having non-European ancestry as an insult. If I was told that my great-great-great grandfather came from Congo, I'd probably be more proud than ashamed of it; and it wouldn't change who I am anyway.
 
Biologically speaking, being "inbred" has far more health risks than being "interbred".
 
 


Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 12-May-2009 at 23:42
Originally posted by pinguin

Many Spaniards don't want to recognize the muslim influence in theirs culture. They see themselves as Christians (Westerners) that fought the hordes of sarracens and defeated them, cleaning up Spain afterwards. They also deny that many Jews got converted and assimilated to the Spanish population, so these times most Spanish people have some Jewish ancestry (Spain had the largest Jewish community in Europe; about 10% of the population. And only half them left, the rest assimilated)

There is no better way to offend a Spaniard that remember them they not only have Iberian and European ancestors but also Semitic: Phoenicians, Berbers, Jews and Arabs.
 
 
Sometimes the jews ascendency is taken too much far and i think how much is due to a political and not scientific approach, for example recently appeared an article with the title "20% of the spanish population is of sephardic jewish origin" http://www.lavanguardia.es/ciudadanos/noticias/20081205/53592910043/catalunya-y-el-pais-vasco-las-comunidades-de-mas-profunda-raigambre-iberica-de-espanya.html - http://www.lavanguardia.es/ciudadanos/noticias/20081205/53592910043/catalunya-y-el-pais-vasco-las-comunidades-de-mas-profunda-raigambre-iberica-de-espanya.html
 
Now i can't find the original article, but i rode an abstract and was ridiculous: they found Middle East genetic marks, and attached it to a jewish past. But in fact, middleastern population in Iberia have a far greater variety in space and time: 1. Neolithic colonizers, 2. Phoenician and punic settlers, 3. Syrians in roman times (arrived with jews), 4. Northafricans with middleastern ancestry (very important) during muslim rule and the own arabs.
 
The correct sentences is "20% of the spanish people have a Middle East origin"


Posted By: Beatriz
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 00:44
Originally posted by calvo

Originally posted by O Anzol



This is denied because it's also exagerated to the max most of the times. Moorish influence both cultural and genetical was very little as was germanic influence. The bulk of the population was always iberian.



I disagree here.
Moorish influence here is MUCH greater than Germanic influence; judging by the pure fact that the Moors have left the Alhambra, the great Mosque of Córdoba, and the old city centres of many cities in Andalucía, Murcia, Extremadura, and Aragón. What about the 4000-5000 Arabic words in modern Spanish? Anything that begins with Al- has Arabic origin. Madrid was founded by Arabs.
What have the Goths and Visgoths left here? Most of them were assimilated into the Hispano-Roman population and did not leave any cultural influence of their own.

Culturally speaking, I reckon that the external influences (from strongest to weakest), come like this:
- Roman (obviously)
- Arabic
- Celtic
- Iberian and Celti-Iberian
- Germanic
- all the rest.... (Tartessios, Carthaginians etc)

Genetically speaking, I probably would agree that most Iberian genes are native; because in the case of any migration or colonization; the foreign settlers are always far smaller in number than the indigenous population.
This applies even to the Romans; who left the most profound cultural legacy. The population of the Iberian peninsula at the time of the Roman conquest was estimated at 4-5 million; and Italy had an estimated population of 6-7 million.
I very much doubt that the Romans had sent half the Italian population to colonise Spain!

Even within north Africans, whom many consider to be "Arabs", most of the genes are native rather than from the Arabia






file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cuser%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_editdata.mso - file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cuser%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml -

file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cuser%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - About the 4.000 words, Like Menéndez Pidal said:
"Nos enseñaron a proteger bien la hueste con atalayas, a enviar delante de ella algaradas, a guiarla con buenos adalides, a vigilar el campamento con robdas o rondas, a dar rebato en el enemigo descuidado."
file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cuser%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - - - Hoewever, at present, we use a far smaller number than 4.000 because they designated realitithat does not exist now, for example these words came from the agriculture field, etc. Every word starting with Al are not arabian such as Alfonso, Alvaro etc... but most of them are.

Moorish influence here is MUCH greater than Germanic influence?

In depends on what (remaining) influence you think is greater: material (architecture, food and artcraft and irrigation channels) which in some case we have inherited and adapted to our lives, or political, religious and onomastic, which we have respected as our essential and cultural core.

- From an architectural viewpoint the Moors left a bigger legacy than the Visigoths.

However, not less important but yet not so visible as material remains: the legacy of the personal 
onomastica . Originally germanic names exceed the latin ones: the surnames enging in -ez are of a Gothic stock, the vast majority of Spaniards, in each province, reflect than influence. That's much of an anecdotal account even if it's identifying. file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cuser%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - To my mind, the major Visigothic legacy is in the political field: phenomenon of national identification. With them–and with a crucial push from the episcopate– the first Spanish nation took shape, culminating in the Latin and Christian cultural unification; their laws were kept also, very romaniced. If not for that popular identification, the Hispanic-Gothic legacy could have left buried for good when the Arabs conquered virtually the whole Peninsula. 

file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cuser%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml -  

file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cuser%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - If Spain did not follow in the footsteps of North Africa, it’s precisely owing to the political Hispanic-Tervingia legacy.

file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cuser%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml -


Posted By: Beatriz
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 00:52
Originally posted by calvo

Well now, I think I understand what you mean about Spaniards trying to hide the Moorish legacy... they probably refer to the genetic part as some north-Europeans and Americans despise them theoretically with the excuse that they are "half-moorish" genetically, which they are not. Is that what you mean?
 
to be honest... at this day and age, after all the scientific discoveries of human genotypes and fenotypes that have completely refuted the 19th century ideas of "race"; if any human being is still obsessed with the idea that being of pure "European" blood makes one superior or inferior...., he would probably be suffering from some form of mental illness. Confused
I can't understand why some people see having non-European ancestry as an insult. If I was told that my great-great-great grandfather came from Congo, I'd probably be more proud than ashamed of it; and it wouldn't change who I am anyway.
 
Biologically speaking, being "inbred" has far more health risks than being "interbred".
 
 

No, I don't understand it either... but it's used as an insult, and also produces the wanted effect. Ignorance is the mother of boldness.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 01:32

If Latinos would consider a mixed origin an insult, we should suicide LOL

The problem with some "pure" people is that they believe "purity" is superiority, and that somehow mixed people only have "half" an heritage.
 
They are wrong. Mixed people don't have "half" and heritage but "twice".
 
 


-------------


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 01:37
Originally posted by pinguin

 

They are wrong. Mixed people don't have "half" and heritage but "twice".
 
 
 
 
This brings back one memory from many years ago.An Amerasian fellow said to me that they're " the best of two worlds " Clap
 
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 01:56
Indeed. That's the idea.

-------------


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 03:09
Originally posted by Ikki

 
 
The correct sentence is " 20% of the spanish people have a Middle East origin "
 
 
 
 
 
Exactly .... many independent DNA research studies concluded 15%-20% non-Euro ancestry of modern Spain population.
 
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 03:25

That DNA stuff shoudln't be taken seriously with respect to tracing religion. Jews arrived around the first century BC and had 15 centuries to mix with local population, and they did.

The fact is, half those Spanish Jews got converted to Christianism and never left Spain. At least 200.000 people, which is a huge percentage of the Spanish population at that time. By then, it is likely both populations had the same genetic already. People don't pass 1500 years side by side without mixing.
 
Now, the influence of Jewish mentality shows in Spain in subtle ways. For instance, the love for books, letters and literature makes sense when one think most intellectuals in the Middle Age's Spain were Jews. And Jews love books. So it is not strange that Fernando de Rojas (La Celestina) and Miguel de Cervantes (Don Quixote) are very likely of converse origins.
 
Besides, that typical anticlericalism of Spanish speaking Intellectuals (so noticeable in Spinoza) and that is part of our tradition, could very well be the result of the fight for freedom in the converse, forced to addapt a religion.
 
I don't know. I was just speculating.
 


-------------


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 16:15
Originally posted by calvo



In the regions that they conquered,  they rebuilt the Roman cities abandoned during the Germanic invasions and developed a flourishing civilization known as Al Andalus.


 
 
Which Germanic tribes invaded the Iberia peninsula ?
 
 


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 17:00
Originally posted by pebbles

Originally posted by calvo



In the regions that they conquered,  they rebuilt the Roman cities abandoned during the Germanic invasions and developed a flourishing civilization known as Al Andalus.


 
 
Which Germanic tribes invaded the Iberia peninsula ?
 
 
THe Visigoths, were Germanic and invaded the Iberian peninsula. 


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 17:19
Originally posted by King John

Originally posted by pebbles

Originally posted by calvo



In the regions that they conquered,  they rebuilt the Roman cities abandoned during the Germanic invasions and developed a flourishing civilization known as Al Andalus.


 
 
Which Germanic tribes invaded the Iberia peninsula ?
 
 
 
 
THe Visigoths, were Germanic and invaded the Iberian peninsula.
 
 
 
 
They were a main branch of The Goths ( it's believed their original homeland:Gotland Sweden ),would it be correct to say Visgoths were Norsemen or Vikings ?
 
 
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 17:26
Nope. Visigoths were Germans. Standard germans. The heritage of German words (and names) in Spanish was likely introduced by them. They weren't the only northern group that arrived to Spain but perhaps the most famous.

-------------


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 13-May-2009 at 18:28
Originally posted by pebbles

Originally posted by King John

Originally posted by pebbles

Originally posted by calvo



In the regions that they conquered,  they rebuilt the Roman cities abandoned during the Germanic invasions and developed a flourishing civilization known as Al Andalus.


 
 
Which Germanic tribes invaded the Iberia peninsula ?
 
 
 
 
THe Visigoths, were Germanic and invaded the Iberian peninsula.
 
 
 
 
They were a main branch of The Goths ( it's believed their original homeland:Gotland Sweden ),would it be correct to say Visgoths were Norsemen or Vikings ?
 
 
 
It would be incorrect to call them Norsemen or Vikings, since those two names refer to a specific Iron Age society (c.793-c.1066).  This period is after the migrations of the Goths and their subsequent split into Ostrogoths and Visigoths.


Posted By: Beatriz
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 15:47

Originally posted by calvo

The Moors conquered very much all of the Iberian Peninsula in the 7th century less the mountainous regions of the northern coast. They were a mixture of Arabs and Berbers; with the former being the ruling elite and the latter being the bulk of the army.

In the regions that they conquered,  they rebuilt the Roman cities abandoned during the Germanic invasions, and developed a flourishing civilization known as Al Andalus.

During the first 2 centuries, Moorish rule was relatively tolerant towards Christians and Jews; provided that they paid more taxes; which made many of them convert to Islam.
In the population of Al Andalus, Arabs formed a very small minority; Berbers made up to 20% of the population, and the rest of the Muslim population were Muladies, Iberian converts to Islam. Of course there were also Christians living under Muslim rule (Morzárabes), and Jews.
During the 10th century, a new wave of recently-converted Berbers arrived from North Africa and founded new dynasties. They were less tolerant than their Arab forebears and persecutions of Christians and Jews began, causing many of them to flee to the Christian-controlled north.
The Christian kingdoms began to gain power and influence from then on; while the Muslim civilization started to decay.
After forming a political alliance, the Christians reconquered little by little the territory occupied by the Muslims; until the last Muslim kingdom in Granada fell in 1492.

After the Catholic reconquista, most of the Muslims converted to Christianity (many of them could have ancestors who were Catholic converts anyway). They were known as Moriscos.
In the height of the inquistion, they either had to give up all their Muslim-influenced customs and try to blend in with the Christian community as much as possible; or they had to leave. Many of them were expelled in the early 1600.

Regarding language, the official language of Al Andalus was Arabic ;  yet after the reconquista, Latin and Castillian Spanish was once again established as the de-facto language. Those who spoke Arabic as a first language had to learn Spanish fast, or face expulsion for being accused of a Morisco.
Nevertheless, the Arabic legacy is very visible in the 4000-5000 Arabic loan words in modern Spanish. Castillian architecture is also strongly influenced by Islam. Many cathedrals in Andalucía and Aragon were converted from mosques. ---> Yes, but we cannot forget either that most moques were also converted from Visigothic temples, like the Mosque of Córdoba.

Due to the inquistion mentality and the dictatorship of the Catholic Church in Spain that lasted until the death of Franco; many Spaniards have been brainwashed to deny and even to despise any Arabic influence in modern Spain. ---> I more than anything relate the Spanish repulsion about "the Moorish" as the result of centuries of prejudiced and Romantic ideas on the part of European Romantic writers who wanted to imagine an Oriental and exotic Spain opposed with other Northern European countries. I also think we must blame people that used "Moorish influence" in Spain as a way to look down on us like :"Africa starts in Pyrenees". In Franco's time, there as still said that "Moors and Spanish" were first cousins, so let me disagree.
They do not realise that we are living off our Moorish heritage to a great extent; for the very fact that every year millions of tourists visit the Alhambra in Granada, the Great Mosque of Córdoba; and medieval cities such as Toledo famous for its "heritage of 3 cultures"!


I agree with most of the bulk of what you are saying, however I would like to clarify a few things about this matter off the top of my head:

-The perfectly different legal, economic and of social level regimes , if any political circumstances impelled to that, resulted in very bloody persecutions, like the one which took place ALREADY around the middle 9th century against Christians in Abdehrraman II's time.

-When Arabic was introduced in the Iberian peninsula, it had to coexist with the languages spoken by the different communities that inhabited Al-Andalus, namely: Romance, Hebrew, Berber and Hispano-arabic dialect (Mozarabe), which was not only used in the everyday communication but also in excelent literary expressions known as "zejeles". So even if the language of culture was Arabic, it was Mozarabe the most widely spoken all over.

-About living off our Moorish "legacy?": I think it's the other way round- in cities like Granada, everything that's Moorish is highlighted and pointed as main attraction, and there are Moorish things sold, say "Moorish things" that are not by any standard characteristic of Granada but rather of  the present North of Africa (not even Al-Andalus)  just for the sake of the exotism and to attract tourists' attention. Just like seeing Flamenco dressed dolls in Madrid or Mexican hats in the Ramblas of Barcelona.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 17:58
Originally posted by Beatriz


...-About living off our Moorish "legacy?": I think it's the other way round- in cities like Granada, everything that's Moorish is highlighted and pointed as main attraction, and there are Moorish things sold, say "Moorish things" that are not by any standard characteristic of Granada but rather of  the present North of Africa (not even Al-Andalus)  just for the sake of the exotism and to attract tourists' attention. Just like seeing Flamenco dressed dolls in Madrid or Mexican hats in the Ramblas of Barcelona.
 
When the conquistadors arrived to the Americas they brought with them handcrafts and art styles that came from the Arabs. The horse races the Spanish used were also of Arab origin, togeter with words and even the aspect of more than a Spaniard! I bet there were the Spaniard themselves who spread through the world that Arabic legacy of Al-Andalus, without even noticing they carried it. Confused


-------------


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 09:42
Originally posted by pinguin

Nope. Visigoths were Germans. Standard germans. The heritage of German words (and names) in Spanish was likely introduced by them. They weren't the only northern group that arrived to Spain but perhaps the most famous.


"Standard Germans"? What is that? Tongue

It's unconventional to call the Goths Norsemen or Vikings, but they were both Germanic, and there is no reason to separate between Germanic peoples in Scandinavia and those settled in continental Europe at this point in history. This is only logical, considering how all Germanic peoples had spread relatively recently from Scandinavia. You need go no further back than 1200 BC and you will not find any Germanic peoples outside of Scandinavia. The peoples living in what is today Germany still spoke Celtic languages.

Here can be seen the spread of Germanic tribes, from the heartland in southern Scandinavia in 750 BC, to their furthest extent in 1 AD (the green area):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Germanic_tribes_%28750BC-1AD%29.png - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Germanic_tribes_(750BC-1AD).png

The Goths themselves most likely migrated from southern Sweden to continental Europe around 200 AD, from there to the Black Sea and were then pushed west by the Huns in the later 4th century. Even today southern Sweden is called Gothland (Götaland) and off the eastern coast lies an island called Gotland, names that go back as far as recorded history. The Goths themselves referred to their ancestral homeland as "Scandza".

In other words, even though it would be highly unconventional to think of the Goths as Vikings or Norsemen, names usually associated with a much later age, to be pedantic the Visigoth kings of Iberia were remotely related to them. Still, we should keep Goths and Vikings as separate phenomenons in history. Wink

To get back on topic; the Moorish conquest of Iberia, though unfortunate for the Visigoth royal dynasty, udoubtedly brought the civilization of the peninsule to previously unseen heights. Next to Byzantium Al-Andalus was the most advanced society in Europe for centuries, built on the heritage of the Roman and Persian empires as brought together by the Arab conquests and channelled into their realms (and beyond). To answer the question of the thread starter I would therefore advise against operating with a clear dividing line between a Muslim and Christian cultural sphere in the first place, on the contrary Al-Andalus should be considered a unique entity based on the fusing of several traditions; Muslim, Christian and Jewish, as well as Roman, Arab and Persian. Of course, during the heyday of Al-Andalus the political and cultural focus was mainly directed south and east, while as the Reconquista advanced Iberia was increasingly influenced by the other European kingdoms, but by this time the heritage of Al-Andalus was already an inherent part of Iberian culture, which the Iberians carried with them even after 1492.

Concerning the Visigoths, they were not displaced by the Moorish conquest. The royal dynasty lost everything, but many Gothic noblemen continued in their position and kept their lands, even after having fought the invaders. A famous example is the nobleman Theodemir, who was a great landowner around Murcia and despite opposing the Moors he had his possessions confirmed by a treaty after 711. Later on he visited the Caliph in Baghdad.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 03:00
Visigoths weren't Vikings, of course, but German speakers that started to arrived to Spain earlier that norse raids even started.
Theirs heritage can still be perceived not only in Spanish and Hispanic peoples appariences (some look nordics) but also in the language itself. Believe it or not words as Spanish sounding as the following are Germanic in origin: Bandido, Bandera, Banda, Guzman, Bernardo, and a thousand more.


-------------


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 05:32
Originally posted by pinguin

Visigoths weren't Vikings, of course, but German speakers that started to arrived to Spain earlier that norse raids even started.
Theirs heritage can still be perceived not only in Spanish and Hispanic peoples appariences (some look nordics) but also in the language itself. Believe it or not words as Spanish sounding as the following are Germanic in origin: Bandido, Bandera, Banda, Guzman, Bernardo, and a thousand more.
 
You forget the most obvious Nordic clue, the ez surnames: "son of". For example, Gonzalez is the equivalent of Gunderalfson. As for the hirsute, the Spanish bigote is the germanic bei Got! And guardia is wardja. And if you wish to terminate a Spanish vampire you had best sharpen your estaca or stakka.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 10:10
Originally posted by pebbles

 
They were a main branch of The Goths ( it's believed their original homeland:Gotland Sweden ),would it be correct to say Visgoths were Norsemen or Vikings ? 
 
The homeland of the Goths seems rather have been south of the Baltic sea. That they should have come from the relatively small island of Gotland is not likely. The archaeological record or other evidence doesn´t support this rather antiquated idea.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 13:32
Originally posted by Carcharodon

The homeland of the Goths seems rather have been south of the Baltic sea. That they should have come from the relatively small island of Gotland is not likely. The archaeological record or other evidence doesn´t support this rather antiquated idea.


Has there been a theory claiming they were from Gotland? It seems far more reasonable to assume they were from southern Sweden, ie Gothland/Götaland, and then they migrated or extended their influence to the island nearby, so that it assumed a similar name.

Seeing as the Goths were Germanic it's impossible that they originated in their settlement in today's Poland, they must have emigrated from Scandinavia at some point, and seeing as their stamp is set on southern Sweden it seems most likely this was the area.


-------------


Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2009 at 15:17
Originally posted by calvo

The Moors conquered very much all of the Iberian Peninsula in the 7th century less the mountainous regions of the northern coast. They were a mixture of Arabs and Berbers; with the former being the ruling elite and the latter being the bulk of the army.

In the regions that they conquered,  they rebuilt the Roman cities abandoned during the Germanic invasions, and developed a flourishing civilization known as Al Andalus.

During the first 2 centuries, Moorish rule was relatively tolerant towards Christians and Jews; provided that they paid more taxes; which made many of them convert to Islam.
In the population of Al Andalus, Arabs formed a very small minority; Berbers made up to 20% of the population, and the rest of the Muslim population were Muladies, Iberian converts to Islam. Of course there were also Christians living under Muslim rule (Morzárabes), and Jews.
During the 10th century, a new wave of recently-converted Berbers arrived from North Africa and founded new dynasties. They were less tolerant than their Arab forebears and persecutions of Christians and Jews began, causing many of them to flee to the Christian-controlled north.
This is my favorite topic. The part above needs some clarification. 
The first part of Al Andalus was Ommayad Empire (756-1039) this is the period of Western Caliphate. In the history of Europe this was probably the most multiethnic and tolerant state ever. These were people that laid foundation for European Renaissance. The most amazing part is that the Arab philosopher was the first to advance idea of separation of state and religion (Averroes - Abū 'l-Walīd Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Rushd ) which was picked up by Europeans. It was only time in European history that Jews, Christians and Arabs coexisted peacefully. According to some archeologist that empire had the standard of living better than present day Europe. This empire was destroyed by civil war and invasion of religiously fanatical Berbers from Africa. After this, it never regained the former glory and small kingdoms were paying tributes to Christian kings until it was occupied by another brand of religious zealots. It was not "The Reconquista", it was more like picking up a low hanging fruit. The famous mosque of Cordoba and ruins of Medina al-Zahara are from its glory period. Allhambra in Granada is form it decline period. The interesting (latinized) people are:
Maimonides, Avenzoar, Abulcasis

This list is longer, but these are most known ones,

Europe would not be what it is today, without contribution of scientist of Al Andalus. I spent lots of time walking in their footsteps and interacted with lots of people in that region. I think that overall people are proud of this heritage and appreciate it. There is no way one can escape this heritage as the main music form (Flamenco) uses the Arab musical scale.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2009 at 19:00
"Which Germanic tribes invaded the Iberia peninsula?" This question was asked some time ago, and no one seems to have adequately answered it! But, it was also mentioned numerous times in the previous postings the word "Al Andalus!" Now I do not know if the following information is now passe", but it seems to me that some adequate historians, etc., have for many years connected this word to the "VANDALS!"

Just look at any map which shows the alleged movements of people(s) across Europe during the time of the Vandals, Huns, and the various Goths, IE the "Visi" and the "Ost(r)!" were either ordered by historians or by book makers to give the reader a visual example of these events, and how these great movements affected other people(s)!

One might well notice that most all maping examples place all of these groups within a very close proximity.

The Vandals time within, what we now call Spain, is never, it seems closely examined or known! But, if the "Al Andalus!" connection is a correct one, then one must assume it was a fairly long stay?

Of course it is also said that said Vandals eventually made haste to cross the straight and proceeded to invade N. Africa! This, in its self denotes a well developed group, just because in some manner this group which, it seems had never shown any sea-fariing ability, suddenly found the resources to move an entire people across the ocean to another continent, and proceed to conquer a part of it, eventually creating a nation of their own! And, not only did they suceed in founding a great nation, they again became proficient in sea-faring or they were wealthy enough to hire ships from historical sea-faring nations to take them upon a sea-conquest of mighty proportions! To make a long story somewhat shorter, they suceeded in attacking Rome and sacking it!

Here is what Wikipedia has to say, if it is sufficient for most of you?

"The Vandals were an East Germanic tribe that entered the late Roman Empire during the 5th century. The Goth Theodoric the Great, king of the Ostrogoths and regent of the Visigoths, was allied by marriage with the Vandals as well as with the Burgundians and the Franks under Clovis I.

The Vandals are perhaps best known for their sack of Rome in 455."

So, if you believe Wiki, then it seems that the Vandals were both Germanic, and cousins of sorts with the Goths!

Here is one of those maps I mentioned earlier; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europa_Germanen_50_n_Chr.svg

And, here is another one; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png

Interesting aren't they? One might also note that the Vandals seemed to have been co-anchored with the famous "Alans!"

And just where on our previous maps do we find the famous "Alans" or as they were also called the "Alani?" Did you find them? If not try this map? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Empire_125.svg Yes, there they are! On the Eastern side of the Black Sea! Wow! Perhaps you might well want to examine their reported history on your own?

But, at least we have some more Germanic influence within the area we today refer to a Spain!

Regards,


-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2009 at 05:45
The name Al-Andalus used to be connected to Vandals. However linguistics made  some progress since then, and newest studies suggest that it may predate Romans in Spain. It is worth mentioning that linguistics are "soft" science so other explanations may be valid too.



Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2009 at 13:55
Cav.., So we might also say that the idea I presented is not "dead" but merely disputed? Heck almost everything is disputed! chuckle! What we really mean is the fact that most everything we think we know about the past is "subjective", and not really "objective!" It is all then, and now mostly "opinion", yours, mine and theirs!

I contend that there exists no real proof about anything thought to have happend before the existance and mass use of the printing press! Before that time (whenever it actually was) there was the "opionion of the Church", of "The King", or the Royal or Church "Experts!", and in most of those times the "Royal and the Church" were connected at the hip!

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2009 at 09:56
By following this thread, we will end at creation of Western Caliphate. Which is the only empire created by invitation. I think that if Vandals and their followers were a bit nicer, it would never happen.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2009 at 16:24
Yes, maybe so? But, it seems to me that the Vandal empire or state became the predecessor, in some weird way, of the Barbary Pirates? Because, pirates would be one of the best way to descibe the Vandals, eh?

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2009 at 10:59
Originally posted by opuslola

Yes, maybe so? But, it seems to me that the Vandal empire or state became the predecessor, in some weird way, of the Barbary Pirates? Because, pirates would be one of the best way to descibe the Vandals, eh?

Regards,

Different periods and totally unrelated, except for geographical location. There were  many people that espoused Vandal model.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2009 at 14:57
Cavalry.., wrote; "Different periods and totally unrelated, except for geographical location. There were many people that espoused Vandal model."

Maybe? Just what was so great about the "geographical location?" Why was it continually used by "pirates" for centuries? Why were the early admirals, etc. of the "Barbary Pirates" from Holland, etc.?
Just how did the Vandal / Alan nation, after many years of being a land wandering enterprise suddenly become a great sea-faring nation?

The Dutch were always known as one!

Just why did Carthage, a great sea-faring nation, only attack Rome via an overland attack? Heck, even the Arabs reportedly led a successful sea-born attack of and sack of Rome! It seems earily similar to the Vandal attack?

It even seems that the Goths, took over N. Africa from the Vandals / Alans?, and then the Franks? / Normans (whom ever they were) took their place! Here is another case whereby a nation mostly noted for very short sea voyages, like across the English Channel, were able to mount a great sea escapade through the Straights, and into the Med., with out having an outlet to the Med. available! Just how did they avoid all of the enemy ships surrounding Portugal, Spain, N. Africa, etc.?

Essentially, just what is the biggest difference between the words "Berbers", and "Barbarians?" / "Barbary Pirates/ coast?"
From what point was the Arab attack upon Rome taken from?
Lots of questions, no matter what period of consensual time we consider!

I believe even the Franks / Normans? also took Rome?

Lots of similar action(s) in the same area!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2009 at 15:25
The difference between pirates and colonial powers was that pirates interfered with the "legal" pillage of the planet by colonial powers. The smaller countries with less resources needed more loot than big ones and had  lot more of seamen willing to take chances (Holland). In your post you are missing the greatest pillagers of them all: Vikings


Posted By: fernao
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2009 at 09:48
Originally posted by calvo


I disagree here.
Moorish influence here is MUCH greater than Germanic influence; judging by the pure fact that the Moors have left the Alhambra, the great Mosque of Córdoba, and the old city centres of many cities in Andalucía, Murcia, Extremadura, and Aragón. What about the 4000-5000 Arabic words in modern Spanish? Anything that begins with Al- has Arabic origin. Madrid was founded by Arabs.
What have the Goths and Visgoths left here? Most of them were assimilated into the Hispano-Roman population and did not leave any cultural influence of their own.

Culturally speaking, I reckon that the external influences (from strongest to weakest), come like this:
- Roman (obviously)
- Arabic
- Celtic
- Iberian and Celti-Iberian
- Germanic
- all the rest.... (Tartessios, Carthaginians etc)

Genetically speaking, I probably would agree that most Iberian genes are native; because in the case of any migration or colonization; the foreign settlers are always far smaller in number than the indigenous population.
This applies even to the Romans; who left the most profound cultural legacy. The population of the Iberian peninsula at the time of the Roman conquest was estimated at 4-5 million; and Italy had an estimated population of 6-7 million.
I very much doubt that the Romans had sent half the Italian population to colonise Spain!

Even within north Africans, whom many consider to be "Arabs", most of the genes are native rather than from the Arabia
 
I have to disagree with you here. Iberian substrate was always the most important plus the romanization.
 
Then the rest depends of the region.
 
Where are you from? You are posting a vision of the Peninsula that is very much biased towards Andaluzia and South Spain...
 
you talk about Spanish language and spanish music, etc.. but what is that really? Sevillanas and flamenco? I can assure you that the traditional music of most of the peninsula has nothing to do with Flamenco.
 
other traditional parties, traditions, handcraft, etc, have nothing to do with moors but instead with celtic, germanic, roman or "undetermined" origins, possibly iberians, and many later medieval influences from all over, etc..
 
even about the languages you only talk about castillian. Mind that even nowadays 20% of the people in Iberian Peninsula do not speak castillian at all and before uniformization in Spain, vast populations would speak also Galician, Leonese, Catalan, etc not Castillian.
 
The reality is a lot more complex than what you say, since different regions were occupied in a very different manner for very different periods...
 
First moorish invasion was 711 and moorish rule was present until 1492 in Granada, which makes 781 years in a region just accross the sea.
 
But, the Asturias, Navarra were never conquered by moors, Galicia and North Portugal was raided by moors but no effective control was ever made, so influence is minimal.
 
Even Barcelona was reconquered in 801, only 90 years after the moors entered the peninsula... In Portugal, for instance, Porto was already a christian city in 868... this gives you a maximum of 150 years of possible moorish influence... these were major towns but the countryside probably did not see much of moorish influence anyways.. it was really far away from North Africa and many of these places probably did not have any moors migrating there, except for those ruling the place in the major towns..
 
Certainly, the germanic influence is a lot more important in North Peninsula than in the south. A close analysis of names and toponimia will reveal this, im sure.
 
Coimbra was first reconquered in 871 and this is already half waty through Portugal.. and then again in 1064, Toledo were reconquered by 1060-1070, and this is already half way through the Peninsula, giving them maximum 300 years of moorish influence
 
versus the 781 years of effective control of Granada, for instance... These are just examples but as you can imagine the picture is very different from what you describe depending on the region.
 
Many words in Portuguese and Spanish, etc, do have moorish influence but in my opinion this does not certifies an effective occupation and migration from North Africa. Moors were advanced people in many arts, culture, agriculture and many words were derived from these innovations. However, we also derived the words "futebol" from "football", etc, without a drop of english blood in us, for instance. The same is true for much of the roman influence, which was probably not much based on migrations from Italy.
 
I am not denying any influence, but i think everything needs to be taken with care and perspective, and it is important to base our ideas on reliable information, documents, monuments, etc. and mind time and space.
 


Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2009 at 10:51
You got your facts slightly wrong. I am not biased against northern christian kingdoms, but these were backwater fiefdoms, really backward. They were independent because of topology and were under Caliphates's political control. The civilization was being built in the Western Caliphate (751 -1031) not in those fiefdoms. The civil wars destroyed Western Caliphate but translations of some of books in the largest library in the world of that time (400,000 books), were propagated  all across Western Europe. Science, literature, medicine and architecture flourished to an unprecedented level. You can see to this day the Arab influence in architecture of southern France (cathedral in Puy de Dome). There was good series about this by BBC but I don't remember the name. If you ever visit Spain, see ruins of Medina al-Zahara and old part of Cordoba. It is interesting that when historians tried to estimate the level of living of people in that Caliphate, they came to conclusion that it is still unmatched in Europe.


Posted By: fernao
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2009 at 04:31
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

You got your facts slightly wrong. I am not biased against northern christian kingdoms, but these were backwater fiefdoms, really backward. They were independent because of topology and were under Caliphates's political control. The civilization was being built in the Western Caliphate (751 -1031) not in those fiefdoms. The civil wars destroyed Western Caliphate but translations of some of books in the largest library in the world of that time (400,000 books), were propagated  all across Western Europe. Science, literature, medicine and architecture flourished to an unprecedented level. You can see to this day the Arab influence in architecture of southern France (cathedral in Puy de Dome). There was good series about this by BBC but I don't remember the name. If you ever visit Spain, see ruins of Medina al-Zahara and old part of Cordoba. It is interesting that when historians tried to estimate the level of living of people in that Caliphate, they came to conclusion that it is still unmatched in Europe.
 
What facts did I get wrong?
 
Man, I have been to Spain hundreds of times  and I am from Portugal
 
No doubt Moor organization was more advance in many aspects, for instance agriculture, literature, medicine, etc, but the idea of barbarian christian kingdoms is completely wrong.
 
This might be difficult for someone in the current days Americas to understand, since America is huge and very uniform, and we have cars and flights that take you everywhere in matters of hours, but in the past the distances were big in a Peninsula like Iberian, even now the regional differences are huge between North and South, East and West.
 
You mention Medina Al-zahara and Cordoba, which are in Andalusia. As I said before, Andalusia was just accross the straight of Gibraltar and some parts were effectively ruled and "colonized" by moors for 781 years.
 
This is a complete opposition to what happened in the North, where some areas were never conquered, some were raided by moorish troops but no effective control was achieved, whereas some others were controlled for short periods, the examples I have gave you, Barcelona less than 100 years, North or Porutgal pretty much the same, etc...
 
In these regions, you can find a lot more Visigothic architecture, etc, than Arabian influences.
 
The point is, the Iberian Peninsula was not all the same. The differences range from 0 years of moor government to 781 years. That makes a lot of difference, dont you think?
 
People keep talking about the Alhambra, Granada, etc, as an example, but it has little to do with what happened in a good chunk of the Peninsula... for me, from the North of Portugal, Flamenco, and many of these South Spain tradition sound just as exotic as for an English or a French.
 
If you have the chance take the opportunity to visit Porto, Santiago, Coruna, Oviedo, Leon, Basque Country, etc and you will understand what I mean.
 
The second point is about the words from Arab.
 
I am not 100% sure but it seems to me that in Portuguese, mostly a latin language, there are at least as many words derived from germanic languages as there are from arabic, but I am not an expert. The thing is, the borrowing of words does not mean that the place was conquered and ruled, etc, as it is shown by the borrowing of words from English or French that happened later in history and is happening today..
 
Anyways, all of this is kind of superfluous... the fact is Moors were here 1000 years ago! That is a long time back.. it is not like 200 or 500 years ago.. after that many peoples came to live in the Iberian Peninsula coming from Europe.. also the world discoveries and colonies completely changed this substrate.. many people leaving and arriving.. certainly the biggest influences through medieval times were from Central Europe and after that many others, political, society, etc.. French in the XIX, English/American in the XX, etc
 
And recent immigrations to Portugal and Spain will impact a lot more on what is Portugal and Spain than immingrations 1000 years ago... Portugal has 8-10% of foreign born population, mostly from Africa, Brazil and Eastern Europe... Spain has 11% of foreign born population, mostly from Morocco, Romania and former colonies, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, etc, and these are much faster than any immigrations that could have happened in the past :)
 
 
 


Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2009 at 09:08
All Christian Kings from kingdoms bordering Caliphate became vassals of Moorish sultans by X century. 
Caliphate was turned more toward North Africa and its most important enemy was Fatimid dynasty.
I don't think increasing land possessions on Iberian peninsula was their main objective. The proximity to the Caliphate helped Portugal and Spain in their later development. 
Two religiously fanatical kings in Spain destroyed a lot of potential for Spain to become a great cultural center in Europe. 
As it happened the rest of Europe benefitted more than Spain itself. The latin translation of books imported from Spain can be found at Sorbonne and in German universities. This provided the basis for all subsequent scientific achievements. 
As a matter of fact both Spain and Portugal will be irrelevant  for many centuries and are known, historically, more for destroying books than learning from them.

About influence of German in Portuguese language:
All Western Europe was invaded by germanic tribes and influenced by them and all European languages have german influences and this includes latin languages such as Portuguese. Only Celts and Basques predate germanic  invasions ( by Vandals, Goths, Visigoths, Longobards etc.). Part of Central and Eastern Europe was subjected to the same kind of invasion by Slavic tribes. There Albanians survived as a distinct group.
All this happened a thousand of years ago, yet it influenced the next thousand years of European development and effects are still visible in the local culture. 
Each time you use toothpaste think of Western Caliphate. Flamenco, Fado all have roots in there. Anyone playing guitar should think about it too.

There is also mythology about Reconquista. Caliphate was destroyed from within and what was left was being slowly picked up by Castilians. This was beneficial for spreading the knowledge through Europe. Al-Andalous Arabs had a habit of making thousands of copies of all kind of books, which were in high demand by population. This was possible because they had mastered producing paper in large quantities (paper mills). This also made these books easy to transport.

Philosophers such as St. Thomas d'Aquinas or Albertus Magnus were inspired by Arab philosopher such as Averroes and Jewish philosopher (from the same region) such as Maimonides. Which is kind of ironic that they had influenced even Christianity itself. Just think about the reach of that culture.

fernao - the end of your post about immigrants is a bit xenophobic. Maybe Portugal will be better of with a heterogeneous society. It is interesting to see a hostility toward immigrants from a country that was providing cheap labor for the rest of Europe, for many years and was able to improve itself with a heavy help from EU.



Posted By: fernao
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2009 at 14:06
Originally posted by cavalry4ever


fernao - the end of your post about immigrants is a bit xenophobic. Maybe Portugal will be better of with a heterogeneous society. It is interesting to see a hostility toward immigrants from a country that was providing cheap labor for the rest of Europe, for many years and was able to improve itself with a heavy help from EU.
 
No it is not xenophobic, dont be ridiculous.
 
What I say there, go read it again, is that in both Portugal and Spain there was a lot of immigration after the moors had left, from many places all around the world, and at this very moment there are ~10% of the population that was born outside the Peninsula. This means that a migration that happened 1000 years ago has very little influence compared to those ones much more recent..
 
Why is this xenophobic?
 
Well, I will think of the caliphate when I use toothbrush for the same reasons that you think of the caliphate and a chinese thinks of the caliphate, not because I am portuguese.. what is the point here?
 
Those sentences are absolutely ridiculous to say the least:
 
"Two religiously fanatical kings in Spain destroyed a lot of potential for Spain to become a great cultural center in Europe. 
As it happened the rest of Europe benefitted more than Spain itself. The latin translation of books imported from Spain can be found at Sorbonne and in German universities. This provided the basis for all subsequent scientific achievements. 
As a matter of fact both Spain and Portugal will be irrelevant  for many centuries and are known, historically, more for destroying books than learning from them."
 
Spain was for centuries a great cultural centre in Europe and it is still is. The number of historic figures coming from Portugal and Spain is immense if you think about its size in the world.. please, understand that if you are ignorant about this it is your fault and probably of the English/German/French centered versions of History. You probably know everything about the Huguenots but mind that by then the Portuguese and Spanish had thousands of cities in America, West and East Africa, Turkish Empire, India, Indonesia, China, Japan, etc, but that never shows up in the "World History Books"..
 
So, ignore the more polemic politians, discoverers and military, probably the most relevant in World History, I suggest you start with the arts, Cervantes, Camões, Pessoa, Velazques, Picasso, Dali, Gaudi, Goya, etc, and their direct descendants cultures in Portuguese and Spanish speaking countries.
 
As a matter of relevance, you might not find much in the World History books that tell you all details about England, France and Germany, to have an idea of what was in fact going on in the world, the Peninsula has produced the 3rd and the 6th most widely spoken languages in the World, together Portuguese and Spanish are by far more widely spoken than English and second only to Chinese.. can you tell me what other part of the world with a size smaller than Texas has been more relevant? 
 
Also the remarks about Fado tell me you know nothing about what you are talking about. Fado is a much more recent type of music, nothing to do with Arabs, just listen to it. All the Eastern Europe music is much more "arabic" than Iberian music, listen to Greek or Balcan music for instance.
 
It seems to me that you have some problem with Portuguese and Spanish in the way depict the two biggest empires for centuries and imagine to "see hostility towards immigrants" bla bla bla
 
So stop being silly and try and learn from people that actually live in the place and probably have  a much informed vision of what happened there. Moorish roots can find in many Portuguese and Spanish traditions, but it is completely wrong to place them above Iberian, Celtic, Roman, Suevi/Gothic and other Christian influences. And the influence is very variable accross the Peninsula, as some of the regions were controlled by Moors for 780 years and other were never conquered by Moors.
 
 


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2009 at 11:10
One must consider that Spain was well involved within Centrally Mediteranean affairs well into the 19th century, via its connections within Italy, and its nature towards France and the Pope, etc. This is mostly a remmant of its participation in the Latin Kingdoms of Asia Minor and the Balkan / Greek world after the fall of Constantinople to the Franks but it existed well into the conquests of the Ottoman Empire, and later.

Of course some of its participation is or was the result of its connection with the Austrian Empire, etc.

We must also consider that some history (mostly obscurred today) actually shows "Saracen" or "Moorish" occupation of other places in Europe. It seems that a good deal of what is now S. France, and parts of what is now Switzerland, as well as parts of Italy, mostly Southern Italy and adjacent islands were also settled in part by persons known to us today as Saracen or Moors. But, it seems that their religious affiliation is mostly considered as Moslem by later day writers, and not those of the period(s) in question.

I have read somewhere that the words Moslem or Mohammedan, and the respective differing spellings, were not apparent in literature until well after the time of Shakespeare! Thus it seems that they were alternately called either Moors or Saracens, and sometimes "barbarians?".

Thus, it seems that as regards their religion, they could well have been "Arians", as were the Goths and Vandals who supposedly preceeded them? Arianism was particularly strong in N. Africa, including Egypt!

But, of course, I could be wrong?

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2009 at 18:49
Lets see, various parts of N. Africa, with land and ports upon the Great Middle Sea, were:
Egyptians, Libyans, Greeks, Hyskos, Greeks, Persians, Berbers, Romans, Goths,Vandals, Arabs, Angevins or Franks, Ottomans, and the Barbary Pirates!
Note, I may well not have all of the proposed inhabitants in order of their appearance!

Can you name others?

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: paulmarcw
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2009 at 05:57
.
.

Pictures of Moors of Medieval Europe:


http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/02-16-800-41.html

.
.


Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2009 at 11:35
fernao - Just few facts:

Any music in Iberian Peninsula which uses guitar owes something to Arabs. 
This is a quote from Lisbon tourist guide ( http://www.lisbon-guide.info/about/fado - http://www.lisbon-guide.info/about/fado ):

"The most commonly accepted explanation, at least when speaking about Lisbon Fado, is that it came from the songs of the Moors, which kept living near Lisbon even after the Christian take-over. The sadness and melancholy of those songs, that are so common in Fado, are a good base to explain the rhythms of Fado."

What is interesting about fado is that it uses western scale, unlike flamenco using arab scale.

For people interested in that music, Mariza has quite following and is my favorite.
Also Cabo Verde Mournas are related, with Cesaria Evora as best known performer.

I am using the simple reference of tourist guide to show what Portuguese themselves believe about that music. There are more in depth references, if you want to look at them, about history of fado and they all point to Moor influence, as well as African and Brazilian. 


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2009 at 09:48
paulmarcw, while I cannot deny the copies of portrayals of persons of obviously "African" (Negroid) descent, are found within the site you presented to us, I can say that the vast majority of recognized scholars do not accept the conclusions offered there, and, at other "pro-African" sites found within the inter-net!

The inter-mixing of people who have been seperated into various "races" by both the Ancients and others more closely identified with the "modern era", it can always be shown children who can be born with attributes related to both parents. Thus some children born to these unions can look like either one of the parents, or the other, or mostly a mixture. Curly hair, is not really an example one can used, nor is a flattened nose, or protruding lower lip!

Yes it is possible that genotype skulls might well be a arguable point? But dark features or skin could also designate some one who spent a great part of their time exposed to the sun? Thus, seamen, on sailing vessels, were quite likely to be darker than their land-locked cousins and indeed if some of the crew was of "mixed" ancestry, then they would also become darker, etc.! One could also point out that certain Italians are or have been variously catagorized as, "dark and swarthy!" While such a characterization might well be worthwile for certain families of Southern Italy and Sicily, etc., it would be mostly "out of place", or rare, in the Piedmont region!

All I am saying, is that the questions posed by the site you presented and other of a similar bent, have to await real scientific scruntity before making "great assumptions!"

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2009 at 11:58
Making a "giant step?", or guess, what would any of you think about the possibility that the term "Fais do do", which is a French American colloquialism. But, I see a possibility of a relationship to the Portuguese "Fado."
I base this belief upon the fact that the Acadians (Archadians) who were dismissed from the area around Nova Scotia and Quebec by the English. These thousands of people of French ancestory, had to leave this area quickly and it seems the only way for them to leave was via ship.

Now, can anyone speculate whereby these people who had their lands and economy seized by the British, had the means to secure berths or rent ships to take them to Louisiana? It is said that the possibility exists that no more than about one half of them lived thru the sea voyages to Louisiana. It seems storms and other disasters made this a very perilous voyage.
I have found no information indicating that British vessels were provided for this extrodinary deportation! But, it seems that various ports in the area served as summer resting places for the Portuguese fishing fleet, which was one of the most formidable fishing fleet of its day.
I there fore propose that many if not all of the deportees made passage in one way or another with the Portuguese fishing fleet! And thus left their "idyllic lands!", which was by the way, the main theme of the Portuguese Fado! It might well be that their destination was also considered to be a most "Idyllic" place also!, IE, a New Arcadia!
It would take little imagination to consider that entire families were crushed into these Portuguese vessels and were kept in close confinment with the Portuguese crew for weeks or months of the long voyage around Florida and into the Gulf of Mexico, to Mobile or New Orleans!

If indeed "Fado" music was a part of the life of these Portuguese seamen, then these French exiles would or could have expected to have been exposed to the music and receive a translation of the words during this long voyage. Ultimately I propose that the word they heard in Portuguese "Fado" was connected to a similar sounding word in French thus "fais" or "faison!", etc.!

And the ultimate creation of the "Fais do do!" which has become an important part of the Cajun lifestyle! Probably as a remembrance of the lost lands, the terrible trials of the sea voyage, and the glory of the arrival at their new home!

You are welcome to look it up!

Any takers?

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com