DNA of Iberians from Europe

[Angela]

The map shows MODERN distributions, i.e. distributions TODAY, or given the parameters that are used in sampling, from one hundred years ago. It has nothing to do with ancient dna distributions.

Does it have to be pointed out once again that modern Ydna distributions are not necessarily comparable to the ancient dna that was present in the same area 5,000 years ago? Ydna fluctuates with time. None of this should be news to anyone who has been reading dna papers for the last ten years.

 

[Johannes]

The population of Iberia during Roman times was about 6 million inhabitants:

https://books.google.com/books?id=N...is ordinarily estimated at 6,000,000"&f=false

"The population of Roman Iberia at its height is ordinarily estimated at 6,000,000"

Does your historian state what was the population of Iberian during the 5th century AD? Because I just noted that you mentioned "at its height" not at the end. If the population of Iberia increased and then declined we need to know what was the population at the end of the Roman Empire. I got mixed up with responding to other posts and just wanted to know what was the non Germanic population during the 5th century AD NOT at its height. So 4 million seems to be about right.

Here is another source that I found: "Estimates of the total population of Europe are speculative, but at the time of Charlemagne it is thought to have been between 25 and 30 million, and of this more than half were in the Carolingian Empire that covered modern France, the Low Countries, western Germany, Austria, Slovenia, northern Italy and part of northern Spain.^[1]" The citation combines sources from David Herlihy article "Medieval Demography" in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages (see Bibliography this article), and from Josiah C. Russell, "Population in Europe", in Carlo M. Cipolla, ed., The Fontana Economic History of Europe, Vol. I: The Middle Ages, (Glasgow : Collins/Fontana, 1972), 25–71.

Demographic history of Europe[edit]

The population levels of Europe during the Middle Ages can be roughly categorized:^[1]

• 280–400 (Late Antiquity): population decline^{[citation needed]}
• 400–1000 (Early Middle Ages): stable at a low level.
• 1000–1250 (High Middle Ages): population boom and expansion.
• 1250–1350 (Late Middle Ages): stable at a high level.
• 1350–1420 (Late Middle Ages): steep decline.
• 1420–1470 (Late Middle Ages): stable at a low level.
• 1470–onward: slow expansion gaining momentum in the early 16th century.

So if we can imagine during the Late Antiquity to Early Middle Ages (200-1000 AD) and estimate the population of Europe to be 25-30 million and subtract 60% who lived in the Carolinian Empire you get 15-18 million. Since about 2 million were in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales you get 13-16 left. Then we take 3 million (I am using 4 millions and subtract 1 million in the north) from Iberia we get 10- 13. Scandinavia and the rest of Italy probably combined had 4 million you get 6 -9. But then we need to subtract the Slavs, Greeks, and other Balkan peoples. Thus 6-9 million seems about right for the rest of Europe. It will help if your source mentioned the figure during the 5th century AD.

Here is another source: "According to Colin McEvedy, in 737 after the Muslim Conquest of Spain, the population on the peninsula was around 4 million. " from The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History: Revised Edition (Hist Atlas) Paperback– November 3, 1992[/COLOR]

by Colin McEvedy [COLOR=#555555 !important](Author), David Woodroffe [COLOR=#555555 !important](Illustrator)

Thus my 4 million seems about right. Thus the Germanic population would have been around 8% but it must have been higher as they probably slowly increased. Given that the Anglo-Saxon population increased about three times and then its safe to say in Iberia it would have been around 20%.[/COLOR]

 

[Drac II]

Does your historian state what was the population of Iberian during the 5th century AD? Because I just noted that you mentioned "at its height" not at the end. If the population of Iberia increased and then declined we need to know what was the population at the end of the Roman Empire. I got mixed up with responding to other posts and just wanted to know what was the non Germanic population during the 5th century AD NOT at its height. So 4 million seems to be about right.

Here is another source that I found: "Estimates of the total population of Europe are speculative, but at the time of Charlemagne it is thought to have been between 25 and 30 million, and of this more than half were in the Carolingian Empire that covered modern France, the Low Countries, western Germany, Austria, Slovenia, northern Italy and part of northern Spain.^[1]" The citation combines sources from David Herlihy article "Medieval Demography" in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages (see Bibliography this article), and from Josiah C. Russell, "Population in Europe", in Carlo M. Cipolla, ed., The Fontana Economic History of Europe, Vol. I: The Middle Ages, (Glasgow : Collins/Fontana, 1972), 25–71.

Demographic history of Europe[edit]

The population levels of Europe during the Middle Ages can be roughly categorized:^[1]

• 280–400 (Late Antiquity): population decline^{[citation needed]}
• 400–1000 (Early Middle Ages): stable at a low level.
• 1000–1250 (High Middle Ages): population boom and expansion.
• 1250–1350 (Late Middle Ages): stable at a high level.
• 1350–1420 (Late Middle Ages): steep decline.
• 1420–1470 (Late Middle Ages): stable at a low level.
• 1470–onward: slow expansion gaining momentum in the early 16th century.

So if we can imagine during the Late Antiquity to Early Middle Ages (200-1000 AD) and estimate the population of Europe to be 25-30 million and subtract 60% who lived in the Carolinian Empire you get 15-18 million. Since about 2 million were in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales you get 13-16 left. Then we take 3 million (I am using 4 millions and subtract 1 million in the north) from Iberia we get 10- 13. Scandinavia and the rest of Italy probably combined had 4 million you get 6 -9. But then we need to subtract the Slavs, Greeks, and other Balkan peoples. Thus 6-9 million seems about right for the rest of Europe. It will help if your source mentioned the figure during the 5th century AD.

Here is another source: "According to Colin McEvedy, in 737 after the Muslim Conquest of Spain, the population on the peninsula was around 4 million. " from The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History: Revised Edition (Hist Atlas) Paperback– November 3, 1992[/COLOR]

by Colin McEvedy [COLOR=#555555 !important](Author), David Woodroffe [COLOR=#555555 !important](Illustrator)

Thus my 4 million seems about right. Thus the Germanic population would have been around 8% but it must have been higher as they probably slowly increased. Given that the Anglo-Saxon population increased about three times and then its safe to say in Iberia it would have been around 20%.[/COLOR]

These figures are for very late Roman and very early medieval times, so if there was a drop from 6 to 4 million it would have included the Visigothic population that was already in Iberia too.

Also, even if we took the 4 million figure at the time of their entrance in Iberia, 150,000 people among 4 million people are only 3.75% of the population, not 8%. If by "Germanic" you also mean the Vandals and Swabians, then we would have to know more about their numbers in Iberia.

 

[Johannes]

These figures are for very late Roman and very early medieval times, so if there was a drop from 6 to 4 million it would have included the Visigothic population that was already in Iberia too.

Also, even if we took the 4 million figure at the time of their entrance in Iberia, 150,000 people among 4 million people are only 3.75% of the population, not 8%. If by "Germanic" you also mean the Vandals and Swabians, then we would have to know more about their numbers in Iberia.

The numbers of an average nation or tribe during the early Middle Ages was around 200,00-250,000. The Goths were not the only Germanics who came into Iberia -- there were also Swabians, Vandals, and Alans (not Germanic but probably had a lot of R1a and I2a). Therefore if I include these numbers they would reach about 400,00-500,000 or 10-13% of the population. Plus they were the masters: they had the best land and were richer than the Ibero-Romans (well not all). Therefore these Germanics would have doubled and perhaps tripled their numbers at the expense of the Ibero-Romans. Think about it: when you have more money and land you have more children. Its simple. It does not matter what the conditions are. The ones who have more food make more babies.

I read a journal while I was in graduate school that researched Germanic surnames among the Iberian population during the 7th century and it turned out that they were very popular and then suddenly the surnames switched to Christian names after the Muslim occupation. That hinted that the Germans were popular and discounted the common historiography that Goths were unpopular. I wish I preserved the notes but it seems that Germanic DNA is much higher that what Maciamo puts in his maps.

 

[Drac II]

The numbers of an average nation or tribe during the early Middle Ages was around 200,00-250,000. The Goths were not the only Germanics who came into Iberia -- there were also Swabians, Vandals, and Alans (not Germanic but probably had a lot of R1a and I2a). Therefore if I include these numbers they would reach about 400,00-500,000 or 10-13% of the population. Plus they were the masters: they had the best land and were richer than the Ibero-Romans (well not all). Therefore these Germanics would have doubled and perhaps tripled their numbers at the expense of the Ibero-Romans. Think about it: when you have more money and land you have more children. Its simple. It does not matter what the conditions are. The ones who have more food make more babies.

I read a journal while I was in graduate school that researched Germanic surnames among the Iberian population during the 7th century and it turned out that they were very popular and then suddenly the surnames switched to Christian names after the Muslim occupation. That hinted that the Germans were popular and discounted the common historiography that Goths were unpopular. I wish I preserved the notes but it seems that Germanic DNA is much higher that what Maciamo puts in his maps.

Those are a lot of assumptions there. The numbers of Visigoths was more in the 150,000 range, and we would need to know more about the numbers of Vandals and Swabians (the Alans do not seem to have been Germanic) and if they were actually less numerous than the Visigoths. You are also overlooking how largely outnumbered they would have been by the natives everywhere they settled, and that these Germanic tribes were frequently fighting with each other and even themselves for control. In fact, one of the arguments that historians use to explain why the Islamic incursion into Iberia was so successful and encountered little resistance was because of this division and struggle among the Visigoths (one of the Visigothic factions of that time allied itself with the Muslims against their very own Visigothic rivals, and it was them who very likely were actually responsible for bringing Islam into Iberia in the first place), and because the native population did not care at all about the Visigoths and their struggles for power. The Muslim intervention would have been considered a welcome change of government compared to that of the Visigoths.

 

[Vukodav]

Vandals, Suevi and Alans had to fight against both Franks and Visigoths before reaching Iberia.

This tribal federation lost about 30.000 men in the battle of Mainz against the Franks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mainz_(406)

After that more than 80.000 Vandals and allies left Iberia to Africa under Genseric according to Procopius.

 

[Johannes]

Those are a lot of assumptions there. The numbers of Visigoths was more in the 150,000 range, and we would need to know more about the numbers of Vandals and Swabians (the Alans do not seem to have been Germanic) and if they were actually less numerous than the Visigoths. You are also overlooking how largely outnumbered they would have been by the natives everywhere they settled, and that these Germanic tribes were frequently fighting with each other and even themselves for control. In fact, one of the arguments that historians use to explain why the Islamic incursion into Iberia was so successful and encountered little resistance was because of this division and struggle among the Visigoths (one of the Visigothic factions of that time allied itself with the Muslims against their very own Visigothic rivals, and it was them who very likely were actually responsible for bringing Islam into Iberia in the first place), and because the native population did not care at all about the Visigoths and their struggles for power. The Muslim intervention would have been considered a welcome change of government compared to that of the Visigoths.

You dont know what you are talking about. There is no evidence that the Iberian natives hated the Goths or welcomed the Berbers because of their hatred of Goths. All this is Muslim propaganda by Muslim writers who wrote about the events afterwards (and they are very unreliable) and pure speculation by third rate Spanish historians. The evidence seems to point that the natives did care about their Gothic kings and government. In fact they were utterly baffled when they saw such strange people (Berbers) in their mist. You use pure assumptions, only you like to take the low level figure, typical of Hispanic writers, and your information seems to always come form the internet (poor source) and some writers I never heard about.

The Goths never mixed with the Ibero-Roman population. This was once of the issues with their rule (the other was religion). However, the Goths turned out to be good administrators. They unified the peninsula and eventually produced one culture. The only problem with the Goths -- and Germans in general -- is that they used the old tribal system of electing the "strongest" candidate to be king no matter what the issue of the previous king. Its clear from reading the chronicles that Witiza produced either a weak successor or a very young one. Therefore the nobility and bishops elected Roderick because he was the most powerful duke in the peninsula. What went wrong was the stupid "Witiza" opposition party allowed these Berbers to enter and defeat the party of Roderick (they even deserted the king during battle) -- it was a coup that went terribly wrong. Thats all. After this the Franks and other Germanic kings eliminated this system and allowed for hereditary succession of kings. Therefore they eliminated this problem (the Goths were too late).

Your assumptions of the "easy" nature of the conquest by Muslims is very simplistic. You should start reading journals or books instead of the Wikipedia. The Muslims never "conquered" Iberia. There is evidence that the Goths and Ibero-Romans resisted the Berbers for a while (around 50 years) and that an Arab army had to come in and help the Berbers. The evidence points to treaties made by the Muslims and native European nobility.

Putting it simply the Goths and Ibero-Romans were initially baffled by these weird strangers and the Muslims could not defeat or conquer them. The solution was made: the Muslims asked the Gothic and Ibero-Roman nobility that they could keep their lands and power if the converted to Islam. Otherwise the Muslims will try to destroy them and strip them of their lands. Thats how the Muslims "conquered " Iberia. It was a treaty of convenience. Your knowledge of Iberian history is weak my friend.

 

[Vallicanus]

Johannes, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own FACTS!

Drac is correct but your view of how Spain became Muslim is mostly fiction.

 

[Johannes]

Johannes, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own FACTS!

Drac is correct but your view of how Spain became Muslim is mostly fiction.

You are clearly an ignorant of what you are talking about. You obviously never read anything beyond "wikipedia" and to say "Drac is correct" is a clear indication that you are very ignorant. Go find another post to put your opinions on. Drac knows only what he gets from internet or very little from other sources -- like you.

 

[tirsoespada]

Johanes is right, seek for the Banu Quasi, one of the most importants families ruling the Ebro valley; they were the offsprings of Count Casio, a visigoth leader himself

 

[Vallicanus]

You are clearly an ignorant of what you are talking about. You obviously never read anything beyond "wikipedia" and to say "Drac is correct" is a clear indication that you are very ignorant. Go find another post to put your opinions on. Drac knows only what he gets from internet or very little from other sources -- like you.

Most of Christian Spain surrendered to Islam. Simple as that.

 

[Vallicanus]

Johanes is right, seek for the Banu Quasi, one of the most importants families ruling the Ebro valley; they were the offsprings of Count Casio, a visigoth leader himself

Proof of Visigothic weakness and collaboration.

 

[Johannes]

Johanes is right, seek for the Banu Quasi, one of the most importants families ruling the Ebro valley; they were the offsprings of Count Casio, a visigoth leader himself

That's right: Count Casio was a classic example of conversion by convenience. Another example was Count Thudmir of Murcia. The Muslims never had the power to subdue all of the peninsula. They were extremely lucky to have had a party of traitors on the Gothic camp. Without the coup the Muslims would have never had a chance. That's why they sought out to make treaties with the Goths. 1/4 of the peninsula was never "conquered." That's the size of England alone! No Muslim settled anywhere north of Toledo. All the Muslim territories in the North were under Gothic converts to Islam like the House of Casio. All of the family members of the Casio married Christian Basque nobles until the 13th century.

 

[Johannes]

Proof of Visigothic weakness and collaboration.

No its not proof of any "weakness". Simply put: the Goths lost their king and many southern Gothic nobles in a battle that was supposed to have been an easy win. Thus the Gothic nobility in the south was destroyed and this caused a lot of confusion. Worse there was a coup and many northern Goths had betrayed their king. THUS the Goths in the south had not choice but to convert in order to keep their lands and wealth. In fact many Gothic families in Andalusia had no one to protect them as the only ones left were the bishops. The Goths had created a highly centralized system of order. Once this was destroyed it created confusion. They didn't have cars and telephones then. News of the event took months to reach the north. By then the Goths had become disorganized and the larger Muslim armies threatened them with loss of the lands. So they converted out of convenience.

 

[Drac II]

You dont know what you are talking about. There is no evidence that the Iberian natives hated the Goths or welcomed the Berbers because of their hatred of Goths. All this is Muslim propaganda by Muslim writers who wrote about the events afterwards (and they are very unreliable) and pure speculation by third rate Spanish historians. The evidence seems to point that the natives did care about their Gothic kings and government. In fact they were utterly baffled when they saw such strange people (Berbers) in their mist. You use pure assumptions, only you like to take the low level figure, typical of Hispanic writers, and your information seems to always come form the internet (poor source) and some writers I never heard about.

The Goths never mixed with the Ibero-Roman population. This was once of the issues with their rule (the other was religion). However, the Goths turned out to be good administrators. They unified the peninsula and eventually produced one culture. The only problem with the Goths -- and Germans in general -- is that they used the old tribal system of electing the "strongest" candidate to be king no matter what the issue of the previous king. Its clear from reading the chronicles that Witiza produced either a weak successor or a very young one. Therefore the nobility and bishops elected Roderick because he was the most powerful duke in the peninsula. What went wrong was the stupid "Witiza" opposition party allowed these Berbers to enter and defeat the party of Roderick (they even deserted the king during battle) -- it was a coup that went terribly wrong. Thats all. After this the Franks and other Germanic kings eliminated this system and allowed for hereditary succession of kings. Therefore they eliminated this problem (the Goths were too late).

Your assumptions of the "easy" nature of the conquest by Muslims is very simplistic. You should start reading journals or books instead of the Wikipedia. The Muslims never "conquered" Iberia. There is evidence that the Goths and Ibero-Romans resisted the Berbers for a while (around 50 years) and that an Arab army had to come in and help the Berbers. The evidence points to treaties made by the Muslims and native European nobility.

Putting it simply the Goths and Ibero-Romans were initially baffled by these weird strangers and the Muslims could not defeat or conquer them. The solution was made: the Muslims asked the Gothic and Ibero-Roman nobility that they could keep their lands and power if the converted to Islam. Otherwise the Muslims will try to destroy them and strip them of their lands. Thats how the Muslims "conquered " Iberia. It was a treaty of convenience. Your knowledge of Iberian history is weak my friend.

Funny coming from the guy who actually quotes Wikipedia articles. I am the one who quotes from actual scholars on Iberian history, not you. You have never heard of them because it is plain to anyone that you do not bother to read books by actual historians, and just invent your own "facts" whenever it suits you. All I have to do is quote passages like this to easily show that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that the Visigoths, like other Germanic tribes, were rather inept rulers who were regularly fighting everyone and even themselves and did not have the loyalty of most of the native people behind them:

https://books.google.com/books?id=J...ained primarily by political weakness&f=false

Page 3:


"The sudden and stunning Muslim conquest of most of the peninsula in 711-714 is to be explained primarily by political weakness... "


Pages 4-6:


"It cannot be held, however, that the moralizing of St. Isidoro and other Church leaders had more than a modest effect on the behavior of the Visigothic monarchy and elite. Though conditions did improve in the final Visigothic century, more Visigothic rulers had been murdered before 610 than died natural deaths. Persistent internal strife among the elite was the primary cause of the final overthrow of the kingdom... Even the Muslims were astounded and deeply impressed by the relative ease with which most of the peninsula fell to their modest forces, a process they could explain only as the inscrutable will of God... The failure of the Visigothic elite was evidently decisive. Foreign intervention was no novelty: Byzantium had earlier held the southeastern corner of the peninsula for some time, and there had been several Frankish invasions as well. The subversion of the Witizan clan, which had recently lost the monarchy to a rival, was central. One of their members, Bishop Oppas of Seville, played a leading role in trying to discourage further resistance after initial Muslim victories. Though such maneuvers ultimately ended in disaster, various combinations of treachery and opportunism among the Visigothic aristocracy were the probable key to the Muslim triumph.


The notion that Visigothic Spain fell before an overpowering onslaught of Islamic fervor and might is probably no more convincing in the spiritual than in the military realm. BY 711 Islamic expansion was nearly a century old, and we do not even know for sure that the first wave of North African invaders was fully converted to the new religion, since most of them were recruited from the formerly Christian kabyles of Northern Morocco. The function of religious fervor in the Islamic invaders should not of course be discounted, but their initial policy of religious tolerance was equally or more important. Ordinary Hispanic Christians may at first have had difficulty in viewing Islam as more than a kind of nonmalevolent heterodoxy (Indeed, for centuries it was fairly standard for Christians to view it as a heresy rather than as a completely different religion.) Most of the peninsula's population failed to glimpse the decisive importance of what at first appeared to be a rather superficial politico-military takeover. The Muslims were so few in number, and the genuine Arabs fewer yet, that they could not easily have been recognized as the vanguard of a definitive change in culture and civilization. It should be remembered that in the eighth century, before "western civilization" had really begun, there was considerably less difference in technology, culture, or general style of life between a west Mediterranean Catholic and a North African or east Mediterranean Muslim society than there would be between, say, Spain and the Maghgrib or the Near East by the close of the Middle Ages.


The ordinary Catholic population was not yet used to resisting military overlords. Other small bands of Visigoths or Suevi had earlier wandered across the peninsula virtually without opposition; after the breakdown of the elite and of their military power, resistance from the Christian population had disappeared. Moreover, there were certain apparent advantages for the common people in Muslim rule. The initial tax on unbelievers levied on all Christians apparently began at a figure below the levies exacted by the Visigothic system. The Jewish minority, who had sometimes been severely persecuted under the Visigothic Catholic state, could apparently only gain from the Islamic system of domination.


The subsequent process of Islamic and oriental acculturation that took place in the peninsula between the eighth and tenth centuries is one of the most fascinating if obscure developments in all Hispanic history. It was accomplished, first of all, by means of cultural diffusion and conversion, not by mass migration."


Otherwise you would be hard-pressed to explain how could such a small minority of foreigners manage to "conquer" almost an entire peninsula in a few years if the Visigothic minority that was nominally in charge really had had the support of the majority of the native population. Unless you want to absurdly believe that the Arabs and Berbers of those times were Supermen who could only be defeated with Kryptonite and thus were able to take over so much territory already occupied by millions of people fiercely loyal to the Visigoths. The historical evidence speaks loudly in favor of the fact that the natives weren't particularly thrilled to have the Visigoths around with their petty struggles. The fact that Islam managed to survive on Iberian soil for much longer than the Visigothic ways also points towards a more favorable view by a large number of the native population to this form of government, otherwise you can rest assured that Islam would not have lasted anywhere near as long on the peninsula had the majority of the native population fiercely opposed it.

 

[Drac II]

Proof of Visigothic weakness and collaboration.

Indeed. It is very ironic that many Spanish Christians have tended to romanticize the Visigoths as these supposed "saviors" of Christianity in the peninsula and the leaders of the "Reconquista" when in fact it was the Visigoths who were mostly responsible for bringing Islam into Iberia in the first place. What they are so proud of was in fact led mostly by Iberian and Celtiberian natives in the northern parts who refused to accept Islam and maintained Christianity alive and eventually to predominate in the peninsula, not by these Visigothic foreigners and their petty quarrels. In fact, most of the early converts to Islam in Iberia were the Goths, not the native people.

 

[Johannes]

I am the one who quotes from actual scholars on Iberian history, not you. You have never heard of them because it is plain to anyone that you do not bother to read books by actual historians, and just invent your own "facts" whenever it suits you. All I have to do is quote passages like this to easily show that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that the Visigoths, like other Germanic tribes, were rather inept rulers who were regularly fighting everyone and even themselves and did not have the loyalty of most of the native people behind them:

Page 3:


"The sudden and stunning Muslim conquest of most of the peninsula in 711-714 is to be explained primarily by political weakness... "


Pages 4-6:


"Though conditions did improve in the final Visigothic century, more Visigothic rulers had been murdered before 610 than died natural deaths. Persistent internal strife among the elite was the primary cause of the final overthrow of the kingdom ... The failure of the Visigothic elite was evidently decisive. The subversion of the Witizan clan, which had recently lost the monarchy to a rival, was central. One of their members, Bishop Oppas of Seville, played a leading role in trying to discourage further resistance after initial Muslim victories. Though such maneuvers ultimately ended in disaster, various combinations of treachery and opportunism among the Visigothic aristocracy were the probable key to the Muslim triumph.

The notion that Visigothic Spain fell before an overpowering onslaught of Islamic fervor and might is probably no more convincing in the spiritual than in the military realm.

Most of the peninsula's population failed to glimpse the decisive importance of what at first appeared to be a rather superficial politico-military takeover. The Muslims were so few in number, and the genuine Arabs fewer yet, that they could not easily have been recognized as the vanguard of a definitive change in culture and civilization. "


Otherwise you would be hard-pressed to explain how could such a small minority of foreigners manage to "conquer" almost an entire peninsula in a few years if the Visigothic minority that was nominally in charge really had had the support of the majority of the native population. . . The historical evidence speaks loudly in favor of the fact that the natives weren't particularly thrilled to have the Visigoths around with their petty struggles. The fact that Islam managed to survive on Iberian soil for much longer than the Visigothic ways also points towards a more favorable view by a large number of the native population to this form of government, otherwise you can rest assured that Islam would not have lasted anywhere near as long on the peninsula had the majority of the native population fiercely opposed it.

I cannot use primary sources because I live and work in China for now. If I had a library then I could easily cross check my sources but for now I am stuck with the internet. The problem with you is that you are an arrogant guy who uses sources to prove your point, but if you have someone else who offers new or different information you become arrogant insulting man.

If you pay attention you will see that your historian is saying basically the same thing I said (and I am using my memory) but uses an adjective "weakness" in a very bad or imprecise way. What your historian should have used is "political strife."

Any person with a brain can tell you that ALL of the nobility throughout history has practiced political strife or competition. If the Goths were "weak" then the Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, the Franks, the Scandinavians, the Mongols, the Blacks, the Indians, and even our politicians all practice Macheavellian tactics were all "weak." The only problem with the Goths is that their tactics ended in disaster. OK? It was a coup that went terribly wrong. This has very little to do with popularity or "weakness." You have obviously been conditioned by the old school who wrote about how the Goths were drunken and incompetent idiots. But there is little or no evidence that they were as such.

 

[Johannes]

Indeed. It is very ironic that many Spanish Christians have tended to romanticize the Visigoths as these supposed "saviors" of Christianity in the peninsula and the leaders of the "Reconquista" when in fact it was the Visigoths who were mostly responsible for bringing Islam into Iberia in the first place. What they are so proud of was in fact led mostly by Iberian and Celtiberian natives in the northern parts who refused to accept Islam and maintained Christianity alive and eventually to predominate in the peninsula, not by these Visigothic foreigners and their petty quarrels. In fact, most of the early converts to Islam in Iberia were the Goths, not the native people.

And who do you think the Spanish and Portuguese high and low nobility belonged to???? The evidence points to a massive flight to the mountains of northern Iberia by mostly northern Germanics and the population who lived among them. The Goths did not ALL convert. It was mostly the Andalusi Goths who converted -- and no wonder -- many were killed and the ones who were left needed to keep their lands (most of the surviving Andalusi Goths were women and bishops). The Goths never invited the Muslims into Spain. They came by accident and were very lucky that they won a battle that should have never been won. The problem with you is you are biased against Germanics and you fight tooth and nail against anyone who disagrees with you. The same goes with others posts I have read. You are simply arrogant and stubborn.

 

[Drac II]

I cannot use primary sources because I live and work in China for now. If I had a library then I could easily cross check my sources but for now I am stuck with the internet. The problem with you is that you are an arrogant guy who uses sources to prove your point, but if you have someone else who offers new or different information you become arrogant insulting man.

If you pay attention you will see that your historian is saying basically the same thing I said (and I am using my memory) but uses an adjective "weakness" in a very bad or imprecise way. What your historian should have used is "political strife."

Any person with a brain can tell you that ALL of the nobility throughout history has practiced political strife or competition. If the Goths were "weak" then the Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, the Franks, the Scandinavians, the Mongols, the Blacks, the Indians, and even our politicians all practice Macheavellian tactics were all "weak." The only problem with the Goths is that their tactics ended in disaster. OK? It was a coup that went terribly wrong. This has very little to do with popularity or "weakness." You have obviously been conditioned by the old school who wrote about how the Goths were drunken and incompetent idiots. But there is little or no evidence that they were as such.

Using academic sources written by experts in the field is the only reasonable way to support your points in arguments about historical matters. So I don't understand why you think this is "arrogant". This is just how normal debate works.

The fact that the Goths could not even be at peace with themselves pretty much says a lot about them and their manner of running things. Such an unstable government could hardly have had much support from the local peoples. The natives did not care about backing up the Visigoths, and the Visigoths themselves were divided against each other, some of them supporting the Muslim intervention. No wonder that once the Visigothic factions that opposed the Muslim intervention were defeated, Islam was barely opposed and only failed to establish itself in the more northern parts of the peninsula.

 

[Drac II]

And who do you think the Spanish and Portuguese high and low nobility belonged to???? The evidence points to a massive flight to the mountains of northern Iberia by mostly northern Germanics and the population who lived among them. The Goths did not ALL convert. It was mostly the Andalusi Goths who converted -- and no wonder -- many were killed and the ones who were left needed to keep their lands (most of the surviving Andalusi Goths were women and bishops). The Goths never invited the Muslims into Spain. They came by accident and were very lucky that they won a battle that should have never been won. The problem with you is you are biased against Germanics and you fight tooth and nail against anyone who disagrees with you. The same goes with others posts I have read. You are simply arrogant and stubborn.

There's several possible historical accounts explaining how Islam made it to the Iberian peninsula, one of them is about one of these Visigothic factions inviting the Muslims to intervene in favor of their struggles with other Visigoths in the peninsula. But whether a direct invitation is true or not, the fact is that some Visigothic factions did support these newcomers once they had gained a foothold in Iberia and even started converting to their religion. So directly or indirectly the Visigoths played a key role in the presence of Islam in the Iberian Peninsula.