DNA of Iberians from Europe

[Johannes]

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.

There are only two versions of the events as we know it: 1) The Muslim version that states that "the Will of God" caused the victory (and is not to be trusted); and 2) The Chronicle of 785 that gives "reasons" for the events from the Gothic side. The Chronicle accuses the Goths of fighting among themselves and of becoming corrupt but it uses typical Christian imagery about "the sins of man (the Goths)" as the main causes the disaster. This is typical Christian BS and is not to be trusted.

There was never any Visigothic "faction" that invited and willing aided the Muslims. That's even more BS. What we can infer from the sources (by the use of reason) is that the party of Witiza invited some count from North Africa (no one knows if he was Byzantine or Goth) to bring a Berber Army and that during the battle the party of Witiza would betray the King and leave the field. Once the King was defeated it was understood that the Berbers and the "count" would be paid off and everything would be OK. But the Berber leader Tarik knew that the Jews were a fifth column and would help conquer the cities of Seville and Cordoba. This is what caused the Berbers to continue on with their conquests. The Berbers would never had succeeded had it not been for the Jews who opened the gates of Cordoba and Seville, became their guides, and garrisoned the captured cities. After the Jews helped open the gates of the cities the bewildered population gave up without a fight or it caused a massive panic of the populations who began to desert the cities and move north. Even Tarik was astonished when he arrived to find Toledo completely empty of all citizens. Some Goths resisted (for example, Achila the principal traitor was certainly killed and Count Pelayo defeated the Muslims in Covadonga) and many made treaties. But since there were no telephones or TV's at that time by the time the news reached certain cities it was too late -- therefore it explains the "deals" or treaties made by the surviving Goths and Muslims. if you look at the map the only areas "conquered " by the Muslims were the areas ruled by King Roderik and Duke Achila and all the rest of the retainers. The Center and Northwest were never conquered.

Thus the only ones who hated the Goths were the Jews because the Gothic kings had threatened to enslave them if they did not convert. If you bother to read more than one book it clearly states that, yes, in the beginning the Goths were unpopular only because they were originally a barbarian nation (and they looked very different) and practiced the Arian form of Christianity. But when King Reccared converted the Goths and Swabians into Catholicism then they were not hated any more (or at least there is no evidence that they were hated). All this you read about the supposed "unpopularity" of the Goths is pure speculation by historians who have traditionally been biased towards the Goths. In fact, I read a journal during the 1990's that studied the names of people from the Iberian peninsula and the vast majority had Germanic names right before the conquest. Then after the conquest they changed to Christian ones. This clearly shows that the Goths were not hated or unpopular. I can go further in stating that during the 8-9th centuries the Muslims were clearly unpopular as is shown with the many Christian martyrs in Andalusia. In fact the Muslims had a lot of difficulty controlling the regions they had tricked into submission until the reign of Rahman II. After that the Iberians began to convert en masse not because they loved their Muslim rulers but because of great frustration of not being liberated and of economic advancement and avoidance of the head tax.

 

[Drac II]

There are only two versions of the events as we know it: 1) The Muslim version that states that "the Will of God" caused the victory (and is not to be trusted); and 2) The Chronicle of 785 that gives "reasons" for the events from the Gothic side. The Chronicle accuses the Goths of fighting among themselves and of becoming corrupt but it uses typical Christian imagery about "the sins of man (the Goths)" as the main causes the disaster. This is typical Christian BS and is not to be trusted.

There was never any Visigothic "faction" that invited and willing aided the Muslims. That's even more BS. What we can infer from the sources (by the use of reason) is that the party of Witiza invited some count from North Africa (no one knows if he was Byzantine or Goth) to bring a Berber Army and that during the battle the party of Witiza would betray the King and leave the field. Once the King was defeated it was understood that the Berbers and the "count" would be paid off and everything would be OK. But the Berber leader Tarik knew that the Jews were a fifth column and would help conquer the cities of Seville and Cordoba. This is what caused the Berbers to continue on with their conquests. The Berbers would never had succeeded had it not been for the Jews who opened the gates of Cordoba and Seville, became their guides, and garrisoned the captured cities. After the Jews helped open the gates of the cities the bewildered population gave up without a fight or it caused a massive panic of the populations who began to desert the cities and move north. Even Tarik was astonished when he arrived to find Toledo completely empty of all citizens. Some Goths resisted (for example, Achila the principal traitor was certainly killed and Count Pelayo defeated the Muslims in Covadonga) and many made treaties. But since there were no telephones or TV's at that time by the time the news reached certain cities it was too late -- therefore it explains the "deals" or treaties made by the surviving Goths and Muslims. if you look at the map the only areas "conquered " by the Muslims were the areas ruled by King Roderik and Duke Achila and all the rest of the retainers. The Center and Northwest were never conquered.

Thus the only ones who hated the Goths were the Jews because the Gothic kings had threatened to enslave them if they did not convert. If you bother to read more than one book it clearly states that, yes, in the beginning the Goths were unpopular only because they were originally a barbarian nation (and they looked very different) and practiced the Arian form of Christianity. But when King Reccared converted the Goths and Swabians into Catholicism then they were not hated any more (or at least there is no evidence that they were hated). All this you read about the supposed "unpopularity" of the Goths is pure speculation by historians who have traditionally been biased towards the Goths. In fact, I read a journal during the 1990's that studied the names of people from the Iberian peninsula and the vast majority had Germanic names right before the conquest. Then after the conquest they changed to Christian ones. This clearly shows that the Goths were not hated or unpopular. I can go further in stating that during the 8-9th centuries the Muslims were clearly unpopular as is shown with the many Christian martyrs in Andalusia. In fact the Muslims had a lot of difficulty controlling the regions they had tricked into submission until the reign of Rahman II. After that the Iberians began to convert en masse not because they loved their Muslim rulers but because of great frustration of not being liberated and of economic advancement and avoidance of the head tax.

There are more versions of what happened, and the one you just told in fact implicates the Goths in the presence of Islam in Iberia all the same. And the claim that Pelayo was a "Visigoth" is a legend promoted by later documents, like the "Cronica Albedense" in the 9th century. In fact, some historians even doubt the existence of "Pelayo". Be that as it may, the Visigoths hardly played any significant role in the "Reconquista". On the contrary, it was them who first set the example of how convenient it was in those times to convert to Islam instead.

 

[Johannes]

the Visigoths hardly played any significant role in the "Reconquista". On the contrary, it was them who first set the example of how convenient it was in those times to convert to Islam instead.

What are you talking about???? All of the Spanish nobility was descended from the Goths. In fact if you were not of Gothic origin you would have never been considered a noble. In the beginning all of the nobility was of Gothic origin and later mixed with other European monarchs. In fact, if you wanted to be considered a "noble" you had to prove you had have Gothic ancestry and no Jewish and Moorish blood. Surnames, such as, Gutierrez, Fernandez, Galindez, Ramirez, or Gonzalez all indicated Gothic origins. Anyone who possessed a Gothic surname was immediately made into a noble. Have you heard of "Hidalgo?" It used to mean "son of a goth" or "son of something (high/important)."

You really do believe in the myth about the "invisigoths" do you? That all the Goths became Muslim and no Goths exited after that??? OK I dont want to argue about the Goths anymore as it is a waste of time since you are stubborn and very biased against them. (I guess all the Spanisrds and Portuguese were Celts who reconquered the Iberian peninsula?

Here is something important that we might investigate:

New clues to the evolutionary history of the main European paternal lineage M269: dissection of the Y-SNP S116 in Atlantic Europe and Iberia:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g2015114a.html

Abstract

"The dissection of S116 in more than 1500 individuals from Atlantic Europe and the Iberian Peninsula has provided important clues about the controversial evolutionary history of M269. First, the results do not point to an origin of M269 in the Franco–Cantabrian refuge, owing to the lack of sublineage diversity within M269, which supports the new theories proposing its origin in Eastern Europe. Second, S116 shows frequency peaks and spatial distribution that differ from those previously proposed, indicating an origin farther west, and it also shows a high frequency in the Atlantic coastline. Third, an outstanding frequency of the DF27 sublineage has been found in Iberia, with a restricted distribution pattern inside this peninsula and a frequency maximum in the area of the Franco–Cantabrian refuge. This entire panorama indicates an old arrival of M269 into Western Europe, because it has generated at least two episodes of expansion in the Franco–Cantabrian area. This study demonstrates the importance of continuing the dissection of the M269 lineage in different European populations because the discovery and study of new sublineages can adjust or even completely revise the theories about European peopling, as has been the case for the place of origin of M269."

It's behind a paywall so that's all I can offer. Obviously, nothing can be evaluated based on this. I'll see if at least the data tables are available.

Ed. They are, and here's the link:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...2015114s1.html


Have you read this article? Do you know about Iberians? if you do let me know what are the conclusions. It might open a new way of understanding the Iberians.

 

[Drac II]

What are you talking about???? All of the Spanish nobility was descended from the Goths. In fact if you were not of Gothic origin you would have never been considered a noble. In the beginning all of the nobility was of Gothic origin and later mixed with other European monarchs. In fact, if you wanted to be considered a "noble" you had to prove you had have Gothic ancestry and no Jewish and Moorish blood. Surnames, such as, Gutierrez, Fernandez, Galindez, Ramirez, or Gonzalez all indicated Gothic origins. Anyone who possessed a Gothic surname was immediately made into a noble. Have you heard of "Hidalgo?" It used to mean "son of a goth" or "son of something (high/important)."

You really do believe in the myth about the "invisigoths" do you? That all the Goths became Muslim and no Goths exited after that??? OK I dont want to argue about the Goths anymore as it is a waste of time since you are stubborn and very biased against them. (I guess all the Spanisrds and Portuguese were Celts who reconquered the Iberian peninsula?

Here is something important that we might investigate:

New clues to the evolutionary history of the main European paternal lineage M269: dissection of the Y-SNP S116 in Atlantic Europe and Iberia:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g2015114a.html

Abstract

"The dissection of S116 in more than 1500 individuals from Atlantic Europe and the Iberian Peninsula has provided important clues about the controversial evolutionary history of M269. First, the results do not point to an origin of M269 in the Franco–Cantabrian refuge, owing to the lack of sublineage diversity within M269, which supports the new theories proposing its origin in Eastern Europe. Second, S116 shows frequency peaks and spatial distribution that differ from those previously proposed, indicating an origin farther west, and it also shows a high frequency in the Atlantic coastline. Third, an outstanding frequency of the DF27 sublineage has been found in Iberia, with a restricted distribution pattern inside this peninsula and a frequency maximum in the area of the Franco–Cantabrian refuge. This entire panorama indicates an old arrival of M269 into Western Europe, because it has generated at least two episodes of expansion in the Franco–Cantabrian area. This study demonstrates the importance of continuing the dissection of the M269 lineage in different European populations because the discovery and study of new sublineages can adjust or even completely revise the theories about European peopling, as has been the case for the place of origin of M269."

It's behind a paywall so that's all I can offer. Obviously, nothing can be evaluated based on this. I'll see if at least the data tables are available.

Ed. They are, and here's the link:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...2015114s1.html


Have you read this article? Do you know about Iberians? if you do let me know what are the conclusions. It might open a new way of understanding the Iberians.

The Visigoths had a very limited presence in northern Iberia, with the exception of some northeastern regions (Catalonia, for example.) These were not the territories that they concentrated in. It is absurd to try to attribute the bulk of the "Reconquista", a process that took centuries to accomplish, to this numerically insignificant minority. As for the -ez surnames, that system was of Visigothic origin indeed, but that does not mean that all the people adopting such surnames were themselves Visigoths. Not any more than when the Visigoths themselves started converting to Islam and adopting Arabic names really made them "Arabs" in a true ethnic sense. If we had to believe in this type of logic, then almost everyone in the Muslim world today must be ethnically "Arabs" because they have Arab-sounding names. Yet any historian will easily tell you that this is not the case at all, in fact, quite the contrary: genuine Arabs are a minority of the Muslim world. Imposing the names of your particular ethnic/cultural background on those of others, be it through conquest or cultural diffusion, does not really change your actual ethnic or racial origin. It is the same thing with language or religion. Such cultural traits of one group have been fairly easily adopted by or imposed on others throughout history. Just think on how many people today have English, Spanish, Portuguese, French and Dutch names, yet come from very diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds that originally had nothing to do with the countries where those names originated.

 

[Gracchus]

What are you talking about???? All of the Spanish nobility was descended from the Goths. In fact if you were not of Gothic origin you would have never been considered a noble. In the beginning all of the nobility was of Gothic origin and later mixed with other European monarchs. In fact, if you wanted to be considered a "noble" you had to prove you had have Gothic ancestry and no Jewish and Moorish blood. Surnames, such as, Gutierrez, Fernandez, Galindez, Ramirez, or Gonzalez all indicated Gothic origins. Anyone who possessed a Gothic surname was immediately made into a noble. Have you heard of "Hidalgo?" It used to mean "son of a goth" or "son of something (high/important)."


It did not take Goth to consider someone "Hidalgo".
the nobles were known for example in the Kingdom of Valencia as "Ciutadans" in parts of Castilla were called "Infanz?n".

The requirements could vary from one realm to another, Catalonia, Castile, Valencia, etc.
In short, to consider someone "Hidalgo" or "Ciutadan"

1. should not exist in your ascendant, any Jew or Muslim, in any of your family lines. These studies were known as "purity of blood tests". It was necessary, for example to enter a, whose members were to be noble military order. It was the same also to qualify for public office in the government of towns or cities. Still retain many of these documents "purity of blood tests", because with them, demonstrate your nobility therefore also exempt you from paying taxes.

2. Serve the king when he will call to war and have at least one horse.

3 None of your family to your great-grandparents should have worked in a job considered "villain": butcher, baker, miller...

4. These people lived their income without work.

Google Translate

 

[Johannes]

What are you talking about???? All of the Spanish nobility was descended from the Goths. In fact if you were not of Gothic origin you would have never been considered a noble. In the beginning all of the nobility was of Gothic origin and later mixed with other European monarchs. In fact, if you wanted to be considered a "noble" you had to prove you had have Gothic ancestry and no Jewish and Moorish blood. Surnames, such as, Gutierrez, Fernandez, Galindez, Ramirez, or Gonzalez all indicated Gothic origins. Anyone who possessed a Gothic surname was immediately made into a noble. Have you heard of "Hidalgo?" It used to mean "son of a goth" or "son of something (high/important)."

It did not take Goth to consider someone "Hidalgo".
the nobles were known for example in the Kingdom of Valencia as "Ciutadans" in parts of Castilla were called "Infanz�n".

The requirements could vary from one realm to another, Catalonia, Castile, Valencia, etc.
In short, to consider someone "Hidalgo" or "Ciutadan"

1. should not exist in your ascendant, any Jew or Muslim, in any of your family lines. These studies were known as "purity of blood tests". It was necessary, for example to enter a, whose members were to be noble military order. It was the same also to qualify for public office in the government of towns or cities. Still retain many of these documents "purity of blood tests", because with them, demonstrate your nobility therefore also exempt you from paying taxes.

2. Serve the king when he will call to war and have at least one horse.

3 None of your family to your great-grandparents should have worked in a job considered "villain": butcher, baker, miller...

4. These people lived their income without work.Google Translate

I know all that you are saying but what you are indicating is the lower nobility. In the beginning if you were from the high nibility, i.e., counts, marquises, dukes, and kings, you had to have Gothic lineage to be considered, otherwise you were not allowed in the higher ranks. Of course later on many people who belonged to the merchant class or someone who was an extraordinary soldier, administrator, or diplomat, could attain noble status but they were never allowed to belong to the high nobility. "Hidalgo" and "Cuitadan" became very common among the lower orders and it eventually became overused. For example, when Queen Isabella granted the Fueros to the Basques the Basques insisted that she make all Basques "hidalgos" or lower nobles because they had no Moorish or Jewish blood. Isabella reluctantly agreed but by then the term "Hidalgo" had become quite common. What I meant by "Hidalgo" is in the beginning of the Reconquista you had to be a Goth or a descendent of a Goth to be considered a noble.

 

[Johannes]

The Visigoths had a very limited presence in northern Iberia, with the exception of some northeastern regions (Catalonia, for example.) These were not the territories that they concentrated in. It is absurd to try to attribute the bulk of the "Reconquista", a process that took centuries to accomplish, to this numerically insignificant minority. As for the -ez surnames, that system was of Visigothic origin indeed, but that does not mean that all the people adopting such surnames were themselves Visigoths. Not any more than when the Visigoths themselves started converting to Islam and adopting Arabic names really made them "Arabs" in a true ethnic sense. If we had to believe in this type of logic, then almost everyone in the Muslim world today must be ethnically "Arabs" because they have Arab-sounding names. Yet any historian will easily tell you that this is not the case at all, in fact, quite the contrary: genuine Arabs are a minority of the Muslim world. Imposing the names of your particular ethnic/cultural background on those of others, be it through conquest or cultural diffusion, does not really change your actual ethnic or racial origin. It is the same thing with language or religion. Such cultural traits of one group have been fairly easily adopted by or imposed on others throughout history. Just think on how many people today have English, Spanish, Portuguese, French and Dutch names, yet come from very diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds that originally had nothing to do with the countries where those names originated.

Yes yes I know what you are saying: what I am trying to tell you is that in the periods between the 6th and 8th beginning all Gothic people were granted automatic noble status. Yes later on many people adopted Gothic names -- as the journal I mentioned described how by in the beginning of Gthic rule Goths were unpopular but by the middlle of the 8th century many people who were not of Gothic origin began to adopt Gothic names -- but later on it became quite common for anyone to have a "Gothic" surname. However, at the start of the Reconquista if you were trying to prove you were of noble staus you HAD to prove you were of Gothic origin.

Anyway, you did not answer my question about the article on Iberian DNA?

 

[Johannes]

The Visigoths had a very limited presence in northern Iberia, with the exception of some northeastern regions (Catalonia, for example.) These were not the territories that they concentrated in.

Wrong: I dont know what you have been smoking and reading or because you are conditioned by the outdated historians. The Goths settled en masse in areas of northern Spain and southern France -- areas around Aquitaine, Castile and Leon, Asturias, Estremadura (Merida), and Navarre-Aragon, but not Catalonia or southern Spain or anywhere in the south of Iberia. Of course we need to add the Swabians who settled only in Northern Portugal, Galicia, and Leon. And we can also add part of the Vandal tribe (Hasdingi).

If you dont belive me then here is a quote from wikipedia: "Visigothic settlement was concentrated along the Garonne River between Bordeaux and Toulouse in Aquitaine, and later in Spain and Portugal around the Ebro River, around the city of Mérida, between the upper reaches of the Douro River, in Tierra de Campos also known as Campi Gothorum in Central Castile and León, Asturias and Toledo, and along the Tagus River north of Lisbon. Little Visigothic settlement occurred elsewhere in the kingdom."

Maybe you need a map to see???

 

[Drac II]

Wrong: I dont know what you have been smoking and reading or because you are conditioned by the outdated historians. The Goths settled en masse in areas of northern Spain and southern France -- areas around Aquitaine, Castile and Leon, Asturias, Estremadura (Merida), and Navarre-Aragon, but not Catalonia or southern Spain or anywhere in the south of Iberia. Of course we need to add the Swabians who settled only in Northern Portugal, Galicia, and Leon. And we can also add part of the Vandal tribe (Hasdingi).

If you dont belive me then here is a quote from wikipedia: "Visigothic settlement was concentrated along the Garonne River between Bordeaux and Toulouse in Aquitaine, and later in Spain and Portugal around the Ebro River, around the city of Mérida, between the upper reaches of the Douro River, in Tierra de Campos also known as Campi Gothorum in Central Castile and León, Asturias and Toledo, and along the Tagus River north of Lisbon. Little Visigothic settlement occurred elsewhere in the kingdom."

Maybe you need a map to see???

The Wikipedia quote in fact actually supports more what I said than what you claim. Do you know where the Ebro river is? It is in northeast Spain and flows all the way down to the coast of Catalonia.

Maps don't show what you claim either, plus they only show who was nominally in charge of such territories, that does not mean that all the northern areas of the Visigothic kingdom had significant Visigothic presence. If you look at maps of Roman Iberia you will also see the whole of it under nominal Roman rule, but it is well known to historians that many areas of Iberia hardly had any Roman presence at all and the local people basically lived in their own ancestral ways and were hardly in contact with the Romans (already discussed earlier in the thread, and which you fully agreed. So there is hardly much difference with the case of the Goths or the Muslims, for that matter. Nominal control does not actually mean real control by a strong presence of the people supposedly in charge of a given territory. There is a huge difference.)

 

[Johannes]

The Wikipedia quote in fact actually supports more what I said than what you claim. Do you know where the Ebro river is? It is in northeast Spain and flows all the way down to the coast of Catalonia.

Maps don't show what you claim either, plus they only show who was nominally in charge of such territories, that does not mean that all the northern areas of the Visigothic kingdom had significant Visigothic presence. If you look at maps of Roman Iberia you will also see the whole of it under nominal Roman rule, but it is well known to historians that many areas of Iberia hardly had any Roman presence at all and the local people basically lived in their own ancestral ways and were hardly in contact with the Romans (already discussed earlier in the thread, and which you fully agreed. So there is hardly much difference with the case of the Goths or the Muslims, for that matter. Nominal control does not actually mean real control by a strong presence of the people supposedly in charge of a given territory. There is a huge difference.)

Drac sometimes I dont know what to think about you. Its so frustrating debating you! You are by far the most stubborn man I ever met.

I know where the Ebro River is and there were never any significant Goths in Catalonia! What you are thinking of is the Franks who settled in Catalonia after Charlemagne invaded. I know the maps show "political control" but this is not what I am talking about!!! I am talking about settlement areas! Get it? I know the Swabians controlled all of northern Portugal and Galicia but this does not mean they settled in the whole area! For example, The Swabians only settled en mass around Braga and surrounding areas. Likewise the Goths controlled the whole Iberian peninsula but it does not mean they settled all over the peninsula! Jesus Christ why dont you pay attention!? The areas where the Goths, Swabians, Vandals, and Alans (they were not Germanics) settled and made a significant impact on the gene pool where -- Northern Portugal, Castile-Leon, Galicia, Asturias, and Extremadura. Thats all. OK?

Why dont you answer about the Iberian article I sent you?

 

[Drac II]

Drac sometimes I dont know what to think about you. Its so frustrating debating you! You are by far the most stubborn man I ever met.

I know where the Ebro River is and there were never any significant Goths in Catalonia! What you are thinking of is the Franks who settled in Catalonia after Charlemagne invaded. I know the maps show "political control" but this is not what I am talking about!!! I am talking about settlement areas! Get it? I know the Swabians controlled all of northern Portugal and Galicia but this does not mean they settled in the whole area! For example, The Swabians only settled en mass around Braga and surrounding areas. Likewise the Goths controlled the whole Iberian peninsula but it does not mean they settled all over the peninsula! Jesus Christ why dont you pay attention!? The areas where the Goths, Swabians, Vandals, and Alans (they were not Germanics) settled and made a significant impact on the gene pool where -- Northern Portugal, Castile-Leon, Galicia, Asturias, and Extremadura. Thats all. OK?

Why dont you answer about the Iberian article I sent you?

Even the capital of the Visigothic kingdom was in Barcelona before it was moved to Toledo, and yet you want to claim there never was any significant Visigothic presence in Catalonia? And you are the one posting political maps as if they meant something regarding Visigothic presence, not me. You should pay attention to what you post. Most of the Visigothic settlement was in the south and center, not the north of the peninsula.

We already briefly mentioned the DF27 subclade. There is not much else to say other than it may or may not be "Celtic". As for M269, that one is found all over Spain, France and the British Isles at high percentages (50%+)

 

[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.

I know I stopped arguing with you about the Goths because of your stubborn and biased attitude about the Goths. However, I forgot to mention this: And who do you think were the leaders of the Reconquista? It wasn't your Celts or Iberians. It was the Goths. Without the Gothic nobility nothing would have happened, see? If it would have been the Celtic-Hispano-Romans it would have become something like Bosnia.

 

[Brennos]

I know I stopped arguing with you about the Goths because of your stubborn and biased attitude about the Goths. However, I forgot to mention this: And who do you think were the leaders of the Reconquista? It wasn't your Celts or Iberians. It was the Goths. Without the Gothic nobility nothing would have happened, see? If it would have been the Celtic-Hispano-Romans it would have become something like Bosnia.

Not all Goths were the authors of Reconquista: the Banu Qasi converted to Islam and created an Islamic principality in the North.

I would better say that some germanic and basque nobles were the leaders of Reconquista, nobles that absorbed Frankish culture and manners.

 

[Drac II]

I know I stopped arguing with you about the Goths because of your stubborn and biased attitude about the Goths. However, I forgot to mention this: And who do you think were the leaders of the Reconquista? It wasn't your Celts or Iberians. It was the Goths. Without the Gothic nobility nothing would have happened, see? If it would have been the Celtic-Hispano-Romans it would have become something like Bosnia.

The Reconquista was initiated in the NW, so it was the people from those areas who are mostly responsible for it.

 

[Drac II]

Not all Goths were the authors of Reconquista: the Banu Qasi converted to Islam and created an Islamic principality in the North.

I would better say that some germanic and basque nobles were the leaders of Reconquista, nobles that absorbed Frankish culture and manners.

The "Reconquista" started in the NW, not the NE, so it was people like Asturians, Galicians and Leonese who led that movement, not Basques, and also the northern Iberian peoples furthest away from the Franks.

 

[Johannes]

The "Reconquista" started in the NW, not the NE, so it was people like Asturians, Galicians and Leonese who led that movement, not Basques, and also the northern Iberian peoples furthest away from the Franks.

Drac you are right that the reconquest began in the NW. But you are both wrong in who initiated it: The Reconquista was begun by mostly Gothic refugees from the south and north and their former vassals of the north -- Asturians, Galicians, Cantabrians, and Basques. You both forget that over a million people scrambled from the south and center and fled into the mountains of Asturias. You also forget that the largest concentration of Goths was in Old Castile (Campos Godos) - an area of towns and villages from Palencia to Toledo (the largest city settled by Goths -- Merida was the second largest) to Saragossa. All of these towns and villages were deserted to a man and thus the bulk of the Goths, including many Swabians and thousands of Celts fled to the mountains in the north.

The Christian leadership was almost 100% Germanic (Goths and Swabians and Franks) because they were the leaders to begin with. The Basques did little of any significance in helping the reconquest. They made treaties with the Muslims in order to keep their rights and properties. The ones who fought the Muslims on a yearly basis from the beginning (750 AD) were the Castlians and Leonese and they were mostly Germanics and Celts (and some Basques and Cantabrians). This is why Spain was founded by the Kingdoms of Leon and Castile.

Banu Qasi was a Gothic noble who made treaties with the Muslims in order to secure his rule over Saragossa. But they never married Muslims. They married mostly Basque nobles.

The Franks did help and fought the Muslims. They created the Hispanic March and founded the County of Catalonia. But they did little afterwards.

 

[Drac II]

Drac you are right that the reconquest began in the NW. But you are both wrong in who initiated it: The Reconquista was begun by mostly Gothic refugees from the south and north and their former vassals of the north -- Asturians, Galicians, Cantabrians, and Basques. You both forget that over a million people scrambled from the south and center and fled into the mountains of Asturias. You also forget that the largest concentration of Goths was in Old Castile (Campos Godos) - an area of towns and villages from Palencia to Toledo (the largest city settled by Goths -- Merida was the second largest) to Saragossa. All of these towns and villages were deserted to a man and thus the bulk of the Goths, including many Swabians and thousands of Celts fled to the mountains in the north.

The Christian leadership was almost 100% Germanic (Goths and Swabians and Franks) because they were the leaders to begin with. The Basques did little of any significance in helping the reconquest. They made treaties with the Muslims in order to keep their rights and properties. The ones who fought the Muslims on a yearly basis from the beginning (750 AD) were the Castlians and Leonese and they were mostly Germanics and Celts (and some Basques and Cantabrians). This is why Spain was founded by the Kingdoms of Leon and Castile.

Banu Qasi was a Gothic noble who made treaties with the Muslims in order to secure his rule over Saragossa. But they never married Muslims. They married mostly Basque nobles.

The Franks did help and fought the Muslims. They created the Hispanic March and founded the County of Catalonia. But they did little afterwards.

The role of the Visigoths in all this is questionable at best, since it has been exaggerated by later chroniclers seeking to "legitimize" the emerging independent Iberian kingdoms of the north by linking them to the old kingdom of the Goths prior to the Muslim intervention. Important figures of the "Reconquista" simply either feigned Visigothic origins or Visigothic origins were foisted on them centuries later (feigning Arabic origins, by the way, was also done on the other side of this story: among those who converted to Islam, in order for them to have it easier to climb the social ladder, where the Arab aristocracy had self-appointed itself at the top.) This whole thing was then uncritically accepted and even more exaggerated by many later historians, specially Germanic ones, who wanted to attribute anything they considered positive to their own peoples, while at the same time conveniently overlooking the very role that those same Germanic peoples had in what they did not consider so positive. Modern historical criticism has rather different opinions of the whole thing.

 

[Johannes]

The role of the Visigoths in all this is questionable at best, since it has been exaggerated by later chroniclers seeking to "legitimize" the emerging independent Iberian kingdoms of the north by linking them to the old kingdom of the Goths prior to the Muslim intervention. Important figures of the "Reconquista" simply either feigned Visigothic origins or Visigothic origins were foisted on them centuries later (feigning Arabic origins, by the way, was also done on the other side of this story: among those who converted to Islam, in order for them to have it easier to climb the social ladder, where the Arab aristocracy had self-appointed itself at the top.) This whole thing was then uncritically accepted and even more exaggerated by many later historians, specially Germanic ones, who wanted to attribute anything they considered positive to their own peoples, while at the same time conveniently overlooking the very role that those same Germanic peoples had in what they did not consider so positive. Modern historical criticism has rather different opinions of the whole thing.

Modern historical research is mainly aimed at getting tenured. This is what you seem to not understand. Everything about what happened to the Goths during the Muslim occupation has pretty much been figured out. There are just two schools of interpretation: 1) the old school that praises the Goths as being the saviors of Spain (which I belong) and 2) the Marxist or leftist interpretation that seems to diminish the role of the Goths as incompetent fools (you belong to that one). I am not adding nothing new here. All I did was to research the evidence and found that the old research was correct and the new as suspect. The difference between you an me on this topic is that you seem to follow slave-like any new book that comes out. BUT there is nothing more to say on this topic. All these new books are just repeating what was found before. It';s just that you don't get it.

 

[Johannes]

The role of the Visigoths in all this is questionable at best, since it has been exaggerated by later chroniclers seeking to "legitimize" the emerging independent Iberian kingdoms of the north by linking them to the old kingdom of the Goths prior to the Muslim intervention. Important figures of the "Reconquista" simply either feigned Visigothic origins or Visigothic origins were foisted on them centuries later (feigning Arabic origins, by the way, was also done on the other side of this story: among those who converted to Islam, in order for them to have it easier to climb the social ladder, where the Arab aristocracy had self-appointed itself at the top.) This whole thing was then uncritically accepted and even more exaggerated by many later historians, specially Germanic ones, who wanted to attribute anything they considered positive to their own peoples, while at the same time conveniently overlooking the very role that those same Germanic peoples had in what they did not consider so positive. Modern historical criticism has rather different opinions of the whole thing.

Drac the Goths were one of the tallest people of Scandinavia and they mostly had blue eyes and blonde/reddish hair. It would have been extremely hard for a swarthy Hispano-Roman or Iberian or Basque to falsify his papers and pass for a Goth or Swabian! The only one who could get away with this might have been a Celt. But the people in those times were not stupid. You had to have hard proof. So no; no one can just say: Hey I am a Goth and be given noble status!

 

[Brennos]

Drac the Goths were one of the tallest people of Scandinavia and they mostly had blue eyes and blonde/reddish hair. It would have been extremely hard for a swarthy Hispano-Roman or Iberian or Basque to falsify his papers and pass for a Goth or Swabian! The only one who could get away with this might have been a Celt. But the people in those times were not stupid. You had to have hard proof. So no; no one can just say: Hey I am a Goth and be given noble status!

This is the least scientific sententia I have ever read...

We are speaking of Medieval Iberia: hair and eye colour of original Celts or HIspano-romans were highly mixed at that time and so were the Goth traits, because your fantastic germanic supermen didn't take the first flight from Stockholm to reach Spain, but they took a long journey from Scania and they carried a lor of other germanic tribes, like Lombards did.

The Goths were the first with Franks to open marriage between their nobles and notable women of Roman ancestry. And, also, Basques were and are among the palest people on the Earth...