Visigothic Spain
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=6250
Printed Date: 20-Apr-2024 at 10:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Visigothic Spain
Posted By: vulkan02
Subject: Visigothic Spain
Date 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? ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Replies:
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 15:33
|
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 Mérida (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. ------------- 
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 20:17
|
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 |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 05:52
|
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. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 08:16
|
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 12:37
|
Vulkan, the Visigoths settled in southern France before Spain. They also left their tracks in southern France mind you. Probably more than in Spain even. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 12:45
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. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 14:36
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.
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. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 17:03
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 Frédélon 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 Frédélon 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.
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 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. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 03:32
I concede the spelling issue.  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. References:
-------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 03:37
|
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 04:35
|
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. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 05:22
|
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? ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 05:42
|
Douple post, could a mod delete? ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 05:49
|
Taken from your own sources: 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. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 05:58
|
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
http://www.languedoc-france.info/120511_raymond_vi.htm" title=" Click here to learn about Ramon VI, Count of Toulouse " class="purpletextlink" style="font-style: italic; - 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 http://www.languedoc-france.info/120505_blanche.htm" title=" Click here to learn about the King of France " class="purpletextlink" style="font-style: italic; - King of France , and to the
http://www.languedoc-france.info/120506_peter_ii.htm" title=" Click here to learn about Peter II King of Aragon " class="purpletextlink" style="font-style: italic; - 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. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 06:14
|
Fair enough for Zaragoza. 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). ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 06:16
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. In fact the 3rd link says exactly: He is considered a possible son of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%A9rard%2C_Count_of_Auvergne&action=edit" class="new" title="Gérard, Count of Auvergne" style="font-style: italic; - Gérard, Count of Auvergne and Hildegard / Matilda, daughter of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_the_Pious" title="Louis the Pious" style="font-style: italic; - Louis the Pious and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ermengarde" title="Ermengarde" style="font-style: italic; - Ermengarde . 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 Cátaros of Jean-Pierre Leduc (apparently it's been published first in Spanish, as that title figures as the original one), 2002, Ed. Círculo Latino. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 06:21
|
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....... ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 08:17
|
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 früche 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. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 09:38
Good to see this settled, and the overlord of Toulouse was the King of France at first before the King of Aragon.
After that Clovis defeated them, they left for Toledo. The King of the Visigoth, Theodoric II, was killed by Clovis. His wife and other Visigoths aristocrat fled first to Barcelona.
They were independant "de facto" but not "de jure". And ultimately, they would be absorbed by France. And I never said they played for the King of France. But they were his relatives, you can't argue over this. And the ruling class of Occitania was Frankish more than Visigothic without contest. I have the feeling you're confusing term because you speak of the nobles of Occitania but often stay only centered on Toulouse and the Albigensian Crusade. You also separate Aquitaine of Occitania. Nothing could be more wrong. Occitania streched from Bordeaux to Nice. There were 5 large countries in, Aquitaine, Languedoc, Limousin, Auvergne and Provence. So if you refer to the Albigensian Crusade, it's either Toulouse or Languedoc you should use.
Yuck, I never said the Goths were restricted to Catalonia. Neither Toulouse or Toledo are in Catalonia to start with (and it's the two cities that were their capitals and where they interbreeded).
Gothia is only a part of Languedoc. The County of Toulouse was Languedoc, not Gothia. Gothia was conquered by Toulouse and ended ruled by the Count of Toulouse.
Of course there were others people in those area. To start with, most of Aquitaine wasn't even Basque back then. Many Celts were deported in under the Roman Empire (ever heard of Saint Bertrand). And the place is multicultural in essence. But here we're talking to the popular classes and not the ruling classes. The ruling class of Occitania was Frankish.
Your quote might not be complete, because the Gascon duke, Loup. Was hung by Charlemagne and it's Pippin. A pure Frank, that took the place. + The origin of the aristocracy isn't defined here. Aquitanians were no longer a people back then but a multiethnic place with a Frankish ruling class.
Franks were rebelious against each others too dude. I mentioned Pippin who led a revolt against Charles the Bald by siding with the Vikings. Should be an example enough. Why would they not be rebelious if they were Franks? Is there a reason in their genes for Franks to be obedient and disciplined? ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 09:51
|
Maju, you clearly stated the ruling class of Occitania was Visigothic. I proved, backed with names and line they were more Frankish. You mentioned the Albigensian Crusade to back that they were Visigoths and not Franks, when the Count of Toulouse of those time, Raymond VI, was the son of Louis VI. Also back in those times, the Duke of Aquitaine was Henry II Plantagenet King of England. None of them would qualify as Visigoths then.... I think it's over. You can't argue the Occitan ruling class wasn't Frankish. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 10:33
I said the Occitanian nobility and, as our dialogue advanced I insisted in the point that I wasn't talking about the major princes but the overall aristocrats.
No, you did not. You claimed that they were son of this or that French or English king, when actually they were just in-laws.
Please review the links I gave for the genealogy of Tolousain counts: Raymond VI is son of Raymond V, also Count of Toulouse, and of Constance, daughter of King Louis VI or VII of France (each source gives a diferent number for the French grandparent but they are coincident on the rest, so one must be a typo). So Raymond VI is grandson (and not son) of a French king named Louis via his mother.
Well, almost. In the time of the Albigensian Crusade, it was his son John Lackland.
I wouldn't say they were Visigoths, rather Normans, at least by paternal lineage. But Eleanor of Aquitaine, the transmitter of the title into the English Royal family... that's another story (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukes_of_Aquitaine_family_tree - Family Tree ). Even her original name Alienor is Occitan. Anyhow, my point is that the aristocracy was mostly of Visigoth origins, not necesarily each prince or princess (duke or duchess), who have the custom of continuously marrying with their equals, almost necessarily foreigners. Anyhow, it's quite clear that the English had support among Aqutanians and that can only be explained because Aquitanians didn't actually feel French yet. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 10:49
|
The Plantagenet aren't Normans by paternal lineage... WTF are you
talking about? They are Angevin and therefore Franks, the founder of
the dynasty, Henry II, had Geoffroy of Anjou for father... it was
through his mother, Empress Mathilda, he was Norman... ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 11:09
Does this mean that ALL Visigoths aristocrats fled? I doubt it. Probably only a selected few did, while the others swore allegiance to the victor. Languedoc (Gothia) remained under Visigoth domain for long anyhow.
The original Duchy of Aquitaine extended over Guyenne or Medieval Aquitaine (almost everything between the Garonne and the Loire), the Toulousain and Gothia-Narbonne. Modern claimed borders for Occitania doesn't normally include most of Guyenne in but include Gascony (Vasconia) instead, plus Provence and parts of the old Burgundian state. Anyhow, I guess you would agree that the borders are somehow arbitrary and could be moved here and there, depending on the period or the viewpoint. Anyhow, I'm using the term Occitania in a restricted sense applying, as you say, to Languedoc and Toulousain, which I don't think is actually improper, as these regions were in the core of Occitan identity, culture and history.
Gothia is, arrondissement up, arrondissement down, the modern region of Languedoc-Rousillon minus the Rousillon-Cerdanya. So I'm not using wrongly the term Languedoc here, at least in the modern sense. Also, when we talk of Aquitaine we risk confusing Ancient Aquitaine (the one that Caesar describe that is what later was called Wasconia and then Gascony) and Medieval Aquitaine, which actually takes the name from a Roman provincial reorganization that stretches mostly between the Garonne and the Loire and was originally maybe Celtic (some dispute the throughout Celticity of this region but I won't enter that discussion) and that was what the Visigoths controlled and later was called Duchy of Aquitaine (and occasionally Kingdom of Aquitaine). I am using in this discussion Aquitaine exclussively in its Medieval conception not in its pre-Roman sense nor in the modern sense of a rather artificial region that approximates somehow historical Gascony (but not quite).
So what? Pippin's dynasty did not remain ruling directly the region for long and local dynasties took over again. I feel like discussing in circles.
Ok, dude. But do not compare. The core of France/Franconia was stable: they could dispute on who is the King or whatever but they never aimed to create an independent state, as Aquitanian and Occitan princes did all the time. There's a diference. Anyhow, instead of rebating my arguments with more or less emphatical sentences, why don't you provide some serious documentation on the Frankish ethnicity of Aqutanian and Occitan nobility? I've provided several sources already, you have provided not a single one. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 11:14
|
To start with, there is no Languedoc in the modern sense, only the region named Languedoc Roussillon. The Languedoc area or Province was the county of Toulouse. And why should I have to prove the Occitan dukes and counts where Franks instead of Visigoths. I already showed the plantagenet at the head of Aquitaine were Franks through FATHER (Geoffroy the Handsome) line. As for the Counts of Toulouse, they come from Frédélon... whose gothic origin you still have to prove. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 11:48
Because I have already presented quite some indications, if not evidence, that your gradious claims are not sustainable. Re-read please.
But that's only in a late date. The Plantagenet are Normans anyhow.
I proved he didn't come from any of the grandious Frankish lineages but from local nobility. And I stated that local nobility, in general, was, according to Leduc, Gothic and, according to Dhont, local and pre-Frankish (what must mean either Visigoth or Roman). My main point is not to prove this or that lineage but to defend that, overall, Occitan and Aquitanian nobility were mostly of Visigothic origins and, as Leduc says, took pride from it. So make some effort yourself or abandon. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 12:01
You've brought no evidence, exactly. And mind you, Poitiers (that you used as roots) isn't even in Occitania.
I showed you already they aren't Normans. Their father line comes from the County of Anjou.... I've showed that already. And there is no continuous line of Duke of Aquitaine, the House from Poitiers doesn't come from Occitania. The one established by Pippin was Frankish, and the one of the Plantagenet was anything but Visigoths.
I see no proof still in that. I can't affirm he was Frankish indeed (even though his descendants mixed with Franks) And you should abandon yourself, first spelling Occitanian instead of Occitan. Then claiming the County of Toulouse for the County of Barcelona, then Gothia as Languedoc and finally saying the Plantagenet are Normans when their lineage is to Anjou and is Frankish..... all those points you have to drop or will have to drop... I really suggest you to give up. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 14:38
You have no right to throw on me my own effort to find out the truth. An effort that you haven't bothered to make yourself. I can commit errors and I will gladly admit that I commit them... but, precisely for that reason, you have no right to use those acknowledged errors against me. You should learn to akcnowledge also your own errors when it is necessary: it is a sign of maturity and wisdom. What you're doing is plainly flaming instead of bringing the discussion to inteligent and mutually respecting paths. Something, by the way, that only speaks against yourself. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 15:02
|
------------------------------- Holy crap, you said yourself the ruling class of Occitania was Visigothic, and you use it on Aquitaine by inheritance of the House of Poitiers... But for god's sake, this is Occitania:  And this is Poitiers!  Right in Frankish territories. And to whipe out your claim they could come from the Visigoths. And we didn't start this discussion through Aquitaine but by Occitania as a whole. Which has never existed as a country so we're obliged to deal with part by part. ------------------------------- It's not maybe I'm right on the Plantagenet... I am right. You're too lazy? Xenophon group has an extensive article on the matters: www.xenophongroup.com/montjoie/anjou.htm And it's much better than your wikipedia articles, yet. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/geoffrey_of_Anjou That's pure lazyness, you could have checked very easily. -------------------- Come on, you posted the link to the house of Poitiers yourself. Check your link to Ranulf I of Poitiers yourself. Then it's obvious there is no continuous like of Duke of Aquitaine. Why do you need books on the matter? It's obvious the Plantagenets aren't of the house of Poitiers but of the House of Anjou. I posted the link already (see xenophongroup). Wikipedia has no extensive article on pippin of Aquitaine. But you can see it on this page: en.wikpedia.org/wiki/pippin Pippin of Aquitaine, grandson of Charlemagne, son of Louis the Pious.... it's not hard then to conclude the line of Dukes of Aquitaine changed a few times. ---------------------- You should have been more precise, you stated the Occitan aristocracy was comming from the Visigoths.. arguably the highest nobles don't. And I still have to see something backing your claim they do. ------------------------ What truth I didn't bother looking for? I linked you articles and read yours. and none of them stated on the Visigothic roots of the Occitan aristocracy. + It's you who adviced me to give up first. Therefore I'm fully entitled to answer you. Yeah, you did mistakes, and then again I answered you once again here... so I repeat my advice again, just drop it. Remember, make efforts yourself or abandon. I think I proved here the lineage of the Plantagenet was not Norman or Visigoths and more Frankish. Than the houses of Aquitaine switched a few times and that if we don't know much on the house of Poitiers nothing can conclude it's of Gothic roots, on the contrary the line of Pippin is clearly Frankish. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 15:35
|
I can't link books. I just can give you the reference. And so I did. As I said before I know prefectly where is Poitiers and that it is what was Medieval Aquitaine. It's not now Occitania... who knows? Occitania has no legal personality. Anyhow it doesn't matter, because it did belong to the Visigoths and then to the independent Dukes of Aquitaine, etc. So it does share history with Occitania, at least till the Hundred Years' War. And there is a continuous Family tree of the Dukes of Aquitaine, starting with Ranulf:  I posted the link somewhere before. What is funny is that you're calling me lazy, when you haven't been able to post a single link or whatever other reference before this last post, sign that you didn't make much research. Take it easy you're going to get tired.  -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 15:55
|
I knew the dynastic lines of the Plantagenet pretty well. And I've already read all (and many more) articles that I linked. And I can't link books either. Though.  And nothing in this family tree can affirm they were of gothic roots. And about Aquitaine, middle ages Aquitaine is not the classical Aquitaine. The Visigoths settled in the classical Aquitaine. Middle age Aquitaine stretch up to Poitiers which has a different background. Modern Aquitaine (the region) exclude Poitiers and that makes a lot of sense. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 16:52
May I remind you the map that opened this topic: Is Poitiers in that Visigothic territory? Yes. Is that in Aquitaine as it was known in most of the Middle Ages? Yes. It would be absurd to start arguing now on the historical dance of the name Aquitaine from south of the Garonnne to south of the Loire to north of the Garonne to Plantagenet holdings on both sides of the Garonne and then to nothing... till someone decided that it was a cool idea to use it for a newly created administrative region of France in the late 20th century. In all the previous posts I've talked of Aquitaine in the medieval sense, and I have even stopped in one occasion to point out that I was talking in that sense: the sense of the historical Duchy of Aquitaine, Poitou included. In this historical period, the region south and west of the Garonne should be refered as Vasconia, Wasconia or Gascony. Precisely in Gascony we can't talk at all of Visigothic presence: there was none (... et domuit Vascones, dreamed the Goth chroniclers). -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 18:23
|
This map doesn't mean the area was settled by the Goths, it's only the Kingdom of the Visigoths and it was short lived. And the Goths occupied Gascony... it's even the first area they controled. And I've never heard of my country being called Wasconia or Vasconia, we use this term for the Basque country. For us here, it's was first Aquitaine (up to the middle age) and then Gascony. Vasconia for the French part would be the tiny band southwest of Gascony.  http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/roman_hunnic_empire_450.jpg - http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/roman_hun nic_empire_450.jpg ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 20:56
|
The Platagenets aren't a norman line Maju, they are an Anjou line, that's why the Empire was known as the Angevin (Adjectival form of Anjou) Empire. But the marriage of the Angevin to the normans created the Angevin empire.
Here is the Platagenet/Angevin line Geoffrey I of Anjou (Aka Grisegonelle d 987) -------> Fulk Nerra count of Anjou (yes the famous Fulk Nerra, the one who devised a system of strongholds and managed to conquered Maine from the Normandy)-------> FulK IV (Le Richin) ----> Fulk V of Anjou (Fulk the Young) ---> Geoffrey V Plantagenet of Anjou (the handsome) Geoffrey Plantagenet married mathilda from Normandy to give birth Henry II king of England. It is clear the Plantagenet line is not Normand but Angevin.
Henry II = duke of Aquittaine = Angevin = Frankish from anjou = (not a goth not Frankish from Normandy). The normans were also Frankish by that time, this is how they are referred to on the Tapestry of Bayeux and that since 1066 . ------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 06:47
|
Sorry, I'm not going to talk about the Plantagenets, it's irrelevant. C. 500 (it's arguable that the Visigoths controlled Gascony, diferent maps show diferent borders and oficial French and Spanish schools are often dominant in the international scene when it comes to set the default in these obscure issues - that doesn't mean that they are right).  C. 600 (this one is more clear):  C. 700 (what reads as Duchy of Aquitaine here, it should be Duchy of Aquitaine and Wasconia: it was a personal union). Since c.770, Wasconia-Gascony recovered its self-government with Loup II.  Where do you think that the name Gascony (Gascogne) comes from? It's just a deformation of Vasconia or Wasconia. See any ethimological dicctionary if you have any doubt. Furthermore, Gascony has many Basque elements wherever you look at:
-------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 07:52
|
I'm sorry to disapoint you, but as Dukes of Aquitaine and Gascony, the
Plantagenet ARE relevant to the history of Aquitaine, they are part of
our history has much as the others line are. As for the maps, they show evolutions of the realms, the first one I posted shows the area they settled in and they controled. Gascony WAS ruled by the Visigoths (as Aquitaine). Then the Basque came back from the Mountains and took the southern area of Gascony (the one you can see in your map) yet it's ONLY A PART of Gascony and not Gascony as a whole, hell even Auch, the CAPITAL of Gascony (Auch is the city of the Eukes tribe, who gave their name to the whole Basque people) wasn't in this. I know Gascony is a deformation, but before being called Gascony, it was Aquitaine. The deformation Gascony was adopted after Aquitaine "moved" north. Hopefully, the two map you posted confirm it and I'm glad they called it Aquitaine and not Vasconia. Blood analysis showed the proportion of + and - blood types are inverted in proportion in Gascony and the Basque country.... deeper analysis also showed the people from Gascony and Navarre have an even more inverted proportion compared to the people of let's say Bilbao.... claiming someone from Tarbes is more Basque than someone from Bilbao would be ludicrous though. And that doesn't go in the direction of the Goths but of the ancient Aquatanians (that I won't discard, I don't mind being called Aquitanian or Gascon, but I reject Basque or Vascon). + It doesn't take to be a genius, I just have to go to Tarbes or Auch, and then to Biarritz and see there are physical differences between Gascons and Basques even physicaly. Aquitanians was closer to Basque, it's true, but we were Aquitanians and should be called like this. I reject the idea the toponims being Basque. I would call the Basque toponym Aquitanians rather. They are similar and comes from the same roots, but we aren't Basques and reject to be called such. Basque only refers to the Vascons people living in Euskadi, Gascons are Gascons, we share a common ancestor but aren't the same people. I've read the first link... I stopped reading at: the Vascones were a Spanish tribe.... it got to be the biggest nonsense I've ever read for ages, there wasn't even anything called Spain back then, and the term would be Iberians to start with..... About the second link, I don't deny Aquitanians and Iberians were related, but I still don't call us Vascons or Basques. For the third and forth link, you can find the same articles on Wikipedia, we were not Basque, we were related to the Basque. + They article is inacurate, not all Gascony was conquered by the Vascons/Basque. See your maps back. All this though has been sending us quiet afar from the Goths. And I was born in Toulouse, from a Gascon father and I live southwest of Toulouse in the Hautes Pyrénées, if you can read Gascon, you could guess my last name, it's a wallnut tree in Gascon. And yeah, I have a recessive blood type too. And Gascons are Occitans too, Occitan isn't the race thing, it's only people who used Oc for yes and that used to include the Catalans for some times. People from Toulouse would be Languedocian if you think in sub groups. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 11:24
|
The Plantagenets are irrelevant for the period that we are discussing:
they are a tardy dynasty. If they were Chinese it couldn't be less
meaningful. It is well know that they inherit Aquitaine from the
Eleanor, who is descendant of the previously posted line. Then, the maps prove nothing: they are just maps and not reality. I posted them all in order to be faithful to the source and not tendencious as you are. But I have yet to see any evidence that the Goths controlled Vasconia (aka Gascony, aka Novempopulania) in any period at all. Archaeological evidence would be very meaningful. What you say about Gascons having Rh proportions inverted when compared to Basques makes no sense at all (as it seems it's the case with many of your gratuitous afirmations). Basques do have about 25% of Rh- and that is the highest proportion in the World. If Gascons would have 75% of Rh-, you and, definitively, I would know.
I do not oppose that at all. I am perfectly aware that Aquitaine is more relevant in Ancient history and prehistory of the Basque people than anywhere south of the Pyrenees/west of the Bidasoa. The name Vascones (Basques) extended to all Euskaldun peoples in the Middle Ages but it is not a native term but a foreign designation in any case. I am sure that if Ancient Aquitanians spoke Basque or a related language/dialect, as it seems we do agree in, they would call themselves Eskualdunak (owners of Eskuera = Basque speakers, in modern English terms) as the do now in Northern Basque Country, and not Vascones, Basques or even Aquitanians, all them foreign designations.
We used to be the same people. But I support your reivindication of Aquitanian centrality. It is clear that prior to the Carolingian consolidation and the displacement of the center to Pamplona, just south of the mountains, as you can see in any map, Aquitaine/Gascony was more important than the south. When dealing with Ancient/Prehistoric periods I normally prefer to use the term Basco-Aquitanian or simply Aquitanian. But in the Middle Ages, with the movility of the concept of Aquitaine to the north, it seems simpler to use the historical name of Wasconia, which is at the very origins of Gascony.
I don't say that those articles are good ones. They just happen to be the first ones I found that mentione the ethimological origin of Gascony in Wasconia/Vasconia. That's all. I acknowledge not being happy about much of what they say. But there are so many partial truths on the history of our land going around. Anyhow, I guess the could be using the term Spain in the ancient geographical meaning (Hispania, Iberian peninsula). In this sense it's somehow correct to say that the original tribe of the Vascones, as described by Greco-Roman geographers was "Spanish", that is: inhabited lands south of the Pyrenees aprox. what is now Navarre, plus Lower Rioja and most of Upper Aragon). In any case, in the Middle Ages, the name had lost its original tribal meaning and actually defined the tribal peoples that spoke Basque at both sides of the mountains. Almost anything you can find in the Internet on Basques and Aquitanians is pretty inaccurate, mostly because the French and Spanish scholarship do have a strong nationalist bias. Ho much they teached you about Gascony in School: I bet that close to nothing (D'Artagnan tale and Cyran de Bergerac as important French writer and singular character, probaly not much more), the same happens in the south. Yet a few truths arise here and there. For instance, when I wrote my article on the Basque People in the Middle Ages for AE, someone said that he had read or seen in maps that the western Basque country was part of Asturias-Leon prior to the 11th century. There's no evidence for that but rather for the opposite, just that Spanish historians found that certain Leonese king had married a Basque woman and from such a trivial anectdote they decided to include all the western provinces in Leon. And you will find it that way in most maps, when we know for sure that the western provinces belonged to Pamplona in 905, and we have no references for the previous times. Not long ago, Spanish historians defended that the repetitive sentence of ... et domuit vascones that appears once and again in the succesive chronicles of Visigoth kings meant that they have founded Vitoria and that they kept control on most of the Basque (and Gascon) territory. Nowadays they have been confronted with real facts and they reluctantly accept that Visigothic control of the Basque area was close to nothing, though seemingly they did organize systematically campaigns and in some moments they may even achieved some minor and unstable success. Basques didn't actually invade Gascony. Those "Vascones" are actually what you call Aquitanians or Gascons. It's a proccess of liberation of the land by the people that live there, assumed that the Visigoths ever held any control, something I strongly doubt. And all Gascony, Aux included, was free at some, quite lenghty, periods, either on its own or federated with Aquitaine (north of the Garonne). There was no invasion, the same that the Navarrese campaigns to liberate Upper Navarre in the 16th century weren't any French invasions as often portrayed by Spanish oficial historiography (when they dare to mention them at all). It was just one people jealous of its freedoms and ready to succour each other in times of need. On Gascon being Occitan, I personally don't think it's the case but rather it is a unique Romance, that shares with Castilian and Aragonese the strong Basque influence (but nothing else). Gascon is probably, as far as I know, the most strongly Basquizied of the three mentioned but that's quite logical, because, unlike Castilian, that was something of a mixed area, Gascon was developed by people that originally spoke Basque (Aquitanian). Yet, this doesn't mean that if you want to be Occitan, I or any other Basque will oppose such decission. We are for the right of free self-determination of all peoples. If you want to be Occitan fine, if you want to be French, fine. But this shouldn't obscure the strong and most important original connection between Basques and Gascons, at least when dealing historical issues. And no, I can't speak Gascon, but I wouldn't mind to learn, be sure about it. If your surname would be Basque, it would be Gaztainondo... but in Gascon, I can't say. It shouldn't be too diferent because in French it is Castagne (not sure if that's the fruit or the tree or both) and in Spanish Castaño. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 12:24
|
The Plantagenet are relevant to the discussion, I wasn't talking
of a specific period of history but to Occitania as a whole. Nothing can allow anyone to affirm the line comes from the Goths... Maps are useful, you just have to join informations to them. The Kingdom of the Visigoths was originaly this part, and most of the Visigoths lived in. You can conclude they had a good control of the place at first, yet as their kingdom stretched, it's highly possible they started to lose control. + I'll turn your point against you when you say they come from Eleanor, which is true, it's the mother line and father lines were prefered back then... yet, if you think in modern sense, the ruling class of Occitania was pretty much interbreeded with Franks and that is sure. About the blood type, inverted proportion was abusive, yet I'm O- and quite a lot of my friends are. As for my identity it's French => Occitan and finally Gascon... I assume it summers it up. As for the internet innacurracy, I agree most of what we say is uncomplete or unaccurate. But to put the responsability on French and Spanish centralism is unfair, many writers volontary have a regionalist and unaccurate view... most of the time, you can hardly trust people on this topic. One thing I know, is Gascon is an heavy romance language at first with a lot of Basque vocabulary, the reason is simple. The area was ruled by the romans who built outposts and traded a lot. Celts were displaced, do you know Saint Bertrand? It's a village that's a former Gaulish colony of displaced Celts by the Romans. Some people also told me Tournay was named after the city of Tournai and that it was a Frankish outpost... technicaly, we are a crossword, hardly debatable. Walnut tree is a noyer in French, Languedocian is noyes, Gascon is Nogues... A simple look on a geographical location of name of France confirms that, the highest proportion of Nogues is in Hautes Pyrénées. Then you could argue or no it comes from the Celtic displaced population here (highly possible) or from the Goths or whatever..... we're still Gascon. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 13:29
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.
Maps a re useful, like infos, when they correspond or at least apporach reality. While those maps do approach the reality in other regions, they don't in Basque-Gascon regions.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
 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).
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?  -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 14:12
I was talking as a whole.
So from the Visigoths to the Basque. I think about culture, once you reached Bordeaux, don't expect much Gascons or anything similar.
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.
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).
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.
When it comes to local history, I trust the locals the least. No offense. I often prefer neutral sources.
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.
That name is VERY common in Gascony. We are legions here, believe it.
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. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: El Cid
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 15:16
|
The important thing is that Visigoths didn't influence a lot in Spanish culture, and didn't do it in the language either. they only introduced a few words like "guerra", war; "burgos", city, castle and others. What do you think? ------------- The spanish are coming! 
|
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 16:05
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:
-------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 18:01
|
and Thank you for getting back on the topic... you lost me a long time ago Maju in your duel with Exarchus
------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 05:48
|
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.
-------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 17:14
|
I did learn quite a few things about your argument with Exarchus... like how to properly spell Occitan
------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 17:34
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....  .------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 19:49
|
I meant the monologue thing only about the Plantagenets, a subject that, truly, doesn't catch my attention.
-------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 20:20
|
Well, if you want to exclude it, so be it. But I consider it's relevant to our history.
------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 06:15
|
I a later period they were. But it is irrelevant for the overall
developement of the Aquitanies before that late Medieval phase. They
are meaningless about the origins of the socio-political structure of
the region, though they get a very important role in the late Medieval
phase, due to their inheritance from Eleanor. Anyhow I'm more interested in sociology, economy, etc. than in dynasties and legendary characters. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 06:50
|
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.
------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 08:24
|
Well, I don't know about traditional Gascon laws but Basque law, also
called Navarrese right is rather unique and developes from its own
cultural traditions. As far as I know this law still applies partly in
the southern Basque country but, as long as Navarre was autonomous in
the north too, it did apply to the Navarrese territories as well,
probably Bearne included. I'm not knowledgeable but guess that other
Basque and possibly Gascon autonomous provinces in France also had that
kind of autoctonous law. Regarding the other areas (northern Aquitaine, Occitania) you're probably right in Roman being the strongest influence, specially in law. I don't think that French (Frankish) influence is so strong before the Albigensian Crusade and the Hundred Years' War. It seems like they had many dificulties to consolidate that nominal domination before. And the full replacement would only happen with the Jacobine centralization of the French Revolution (a process that found resistences and federalist alternatives in some parts of the south particularly). -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Pelayo
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 00:33
|
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. |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 08:17
|
Visigoths weren't "settlers": they were aristocrats. True that they
seem to have concentrated in some areas of the central plateau but
precisely in regions that would eventually be the no-man's land between
Muslims and Christians, so they probably migrated after the Muslim
invasion anyhow. The figures I've read are 5% the most. I suspect they would be much less. Just that they were well organized and were fierce warriors. 10% would mean hundreds of thousands. I don't think that's possible. Also, all genetic studies show Iberia as a clearly Western European region with some significative Mediterranean input. If Goths would have come in significative numbers, that would be noticeable in the genetic map in the form of Northern or Eastern European genetic presence (they came almost directly from Dacia). Yet that is simply minimal and can also be attributed to other sources (Celts, Franks and even Vikings and modern population mobility). Hg3 could be a relatively good marker for Eastern or Northern populations (males) coming but it is only slightly (3%) represented in Spain. It can't be only attributed to Goths in any case: other Germans, Celts (originally from southern Germany) and other random sources (Atlantic and Mediterranean contacts) can explain it very well. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Pelayo
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 10:51
|
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%. |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 13:48
|
Hg2 is old as Europe. It is no reliable marker of anything. All other
European Y haplogroups derive from it, so it can't be considered but in
relation (proportion) with the others. See my recently started topic http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6619&PN=1 -
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Pelayo
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 14:22
| I suggest you read the source I have given you and you may change your perspective. |
Posted By: Aragones
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2005 at 11:52
|
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. ------------- Time is just another dimension. |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2005 at 12:17
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. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Aragones
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2005 at 07:02
|
Your welcome Maju. I see you are using the old nomenclature of dna haplogroups.The new and most updated studies about european groups are called, R1b, R1a, I, your neolithic J, J2, E3b...all this groups cover about 95% of all europeans.Cavalli-Sforza got totally debunked of most of his studies done circa 1990, by Dr. Sykes. Going back to your gothic quimera (in which I agree mostly on everything you have posted).It is very preliminary but nevertheless suggests that they should belong to either R1a or I... not r1b, which reaches it's peak west of Europe and declines in numbers East, and partially North, where the I haplogroup is quite large. For now you are right, there is no way we can tell, but I was talking about the future studies of populations, especially the National Genographic Project, looks very promising. Please do not turn down future discoveries, it's not a sign of enlightenment. Best regards, Aragones ------------- Time is just another dimension. |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2005 at 16:07
I know. It's just to simplify, as the older nomenclature is better know (because several maps with cakes have been posted in this forum: it's very visual). Basically we can say that +/- R1a is Hg1 (plus Hg22), I is Hg2 and R1b is Hg3 (this one matches exactly). These three are the most important ones and are thought to have spread mostly in Paleolithic times.
I'm not sure that is the case. What has been reviewed, as far as I know, is the hypothesis of most of the genetic material entering Europe with the Neolitic. Now it seems it was mostly a Paleolitic process, what leaves the theories of mass migrations in rags.
It's the other way around: R1b is (exactly) Hg3 (Eastern European) and R1a is (approximately) Hg1+Hg22 (Western). See the topic http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6619&PN=1 - For now you are right, there is no way we can tell, but I was talking
about the future studies of populations, especially the National
Genographic Project, looks very promising. Please do not turn down
future discoveries, it's not a sign of enlightenment. | Best regards, Aragones |
The main problem with Goths (and others) is that we actually have no idea on which were their specific lineages or the proportion of their haplogroups. If you take as reference Sweden, Poland or Rumania, you have very diferent cakes, though it seems quite obvious that Hg3/R1b must have been important.
But, as I said before those traces of Hg3 found in Iberia and other Western areas can well have come with many other peoples. Hard to say.
-------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER!