The alleged Arab invasion of Spain.

[^ lynx ^]

A caso soy el unico al que le parece curioso que los sospechosos de ser trolls sean siempre los que acaban abriendo hilos sobre el mismo temita recurrente (arabes e Iberia)???

Dejad de ser tan ingenuos chicos y dejad de darle bola al troll.

Don't feed the troll.

 

[Carlitos]

The arguments on which it is difficult to summarize Olag?e and suggest that they evaluate themselves, exposed briefly, the most important are these four:

1) The Chronicles in which he spoke of an Arab invasion is a text of Isidore Badajoz, whose story reaches 734, a story in Arabic by Ibn-Abir-Rika (891), another Egyptian Abd-al-Hakka (871 ), two chronicles in Latin, that of Alfonso III in 833 and the Chronicle of Albelda, of the same date, the others are written and eleventh and twelfth centuries and Arabic. According to Olague, based on these texts can not be inferred to occur Arab armed invasion on the peninsula, for example, in the Chronicle of Alfonso III states that fought in Covadonga 240,000 Arabs would certainly be suspect because they do not fit.

2) The famous treason of Count Don Julian in the battle of Guadalete can be interpreted as follows: Don Julian, noble Andalusian fighting for its independence against the Goth Rodrigo remember that Andalusia was not Gothic, and calls to his aid to allies across the Strait.

3) A citizen Hispano, civilized and cultured, the seventh and eighth centuries, with the choice of a Visigoth barbarian culture, and even rudimentary in northern Europe, had to turn to the only civilized culture of that time, Islamic , heir and spokesman of ancient wisdom.

The Hispano was Islamized, as now, for other reasons, were Americanized without landing the marines in the Guadalete.

4) It is very difficult to understand how in a hundred years, the Arabs, who were a nomadic tribe necessarily few in number, conquered an empire of 9,000 kms, in ever shorter times farther away from its base, 53 for Tunisia, 10 for North Africa and 3 from the Iberian Peninsula. According to the myth of the invasion, Tarik Musa had brought 7,000 men and 18,000, so that with 25,000 men defeated in three years to ten million iberromanizados at that time occupied the skin of a bull, which was, on this occasion, a hat meek incompatible with the ancient heroic traditions of Numancia, Viriato Ind?bil and Mandonius, Daoiz and Velarde and other national glories.

What happened, according Olague, was a cultural diffusion Iberia adopted by the Islamic culture, except in certain northern strongholds, Cantabrian and Pyrenees who started a war of conquest and territorial unification. Both the Christian conquerors, to a religious motive to their occupations, such as religious Christians to justify their failure in the peninsula, were interested in promoting the myth of an Arab armed invasion, when the "Reconquista" was actually a war civil. From this perspective, land reform pending in Spain would not be anything other than the payment of reparations from the war of conquest, not "re."

 

[Regulus]

The number of true Arabs in Spain and Portugal was always extremely low.

Yes, the Arab (most properyl Berber) invasion has been overexagerated. They were always a minority, it was more of a military occupation, a religious rule, not a demographical one. The same can be said of Romans : They were also a minortiy despite their dominance and rule. And today with autosomal dna we know that genetically the north-african influence has been minimal (2-3 % maximum) in Spain but mostly confined in the south. In the half north of Spain is virtually 0%

This thread is one that I had first planned to avoid completely as it is so off-kilter. The two quotes above hit the nail on the head. From a historical perspective, there is no denying that a real invasion (but not migration which is a big difference) took place. If the Berbers has not been recently converted, there may very well have never been an invasion as the Arabs had been extended pretty far at that point. The Berbers provided an addition of manpower. Iberia was ruled by dynasties and what they brought along with them.

To suggest that there was some type of super-rapid cultural diffusion would not only require turning a blind eye (I assume that ojo ciego would not translate) to what happened. Islam has been described as fighting its "way up population gradients" (quote McEvedy) in many circumstances but to my knowledge never came by a people reaching out and absorbing it across a border/frontier. That was not what occurred at all.

Iberia was a tempting target for an army which was very much based on the rapid acquisition of booty. The Visigoths, trying to exist as Arian Christian rulers of Catholic subjects, had never ingratiated themselves with the people as the Franks did after Clovis' choice of Catholicism.
They had also been involved is desultory wars with the Byzantines and had only recently kicked them out of the peninsula completely. The Visigothic Kingdom was not in a position nor may not have had the unity necessary to repel a significant assault. The Islamic rulers, being so far away from reinforcements/help, were likely less harsh than Muslim rulers in other places, especially after the Umayyads were left ruling Iberia and nothing else following the establishment of the Abbasid caliphate. (And the murder of most of their family) After they caliphate here fell apart into warring emirates, they still had no reason to make the Christian states in the north look attractive to their subjects. They probably did not have the manpower to suppress any potential peasants revolt.

They did bring learning and culture to Iberia, although aside from Algebra very much of it was gleaned from ancient Greeks and Persians. This environment was not pulled in by the people of Iberia. The magnitude of the invasions may very well have been overstated, but lets remember that this forum is about history, not changing history.

 

[Reinaert]

Hmm.. Clovis choice for the Roman Catholic church was purely political. He was a Frank, and wanted power. So he did chose for the pope in Rome. Very clever, but it was a disaster for Europe.

On the other hand.. Don't play down what the Muslims were capable of. Not only algebra, but also inventions that were high standard in that time.
A water pumping wheel that is driven by a second wheel in a river is very clever, and exists until today in Syria I think. But there other examples of technicians in the region of Damascus.

Ever heard of Damascus steel?

It's the Middle East equivalent of a Samurai sword.

 

[Regulus]

Hmm.. Clovis choice for the Roman Catholic church was purely political. He was a Frank, and wanted power. So he did chose for the pope in Rome. Very clever, but it was a disaster for Europe.

On the other hand.. Don't play down what the Muslims were capable of. Not only algebra, but also inventions that were high standard in that time.
A water pumping wheel that is driven by a second wheel in a river is very clever, and exists until today in Syria I think. But there other examples of technicians in the region of Damascus.

Ever heard of Damascus steel?

It's the Middle East equivalent of a Samurai sword.

Here we go again..... Let us ensure that we don't get into a long discourse on Clovis or Catholicism because they are not the subjects. The fact, as I said, was that his adoption of Catholicism allied him more with the people and the clerics of the Church and that this contrasted with the situation with the Visigoths in Iberia. It was clearly no disaster for Europe. If you want to assert that, start a thread about that subject. Keep that one off here.

I did not play down anything on the Muslims. I wrote that much of what they introduced to places such as Iberia was gleaned from Greeks, Sassanid Persians, etc. That they were good at picking up the best from others and helping it spread is a known fact. A tremendous amount of their architecture and government administration was taken straight from the Byzantines, sometimes directly from experts provided as a diplomatic gift from the Emperor. Yes, I have heard of Damascus steel, and of Toledo steel. Either way, start a whole new thread on that subject if you wish. This thread is about the non-invasion or invasion of Iberia

There were technological developments on both sides. Ever hear of the windmill?

 

[hangman]

You're wrong boy and you have to learn about your country.The arabians were in your land around 800 years...that's a fact.

 

[Carlitos]

The official version, if you have read the thread there are arguments that show that history also distorts and invents for each other's interests. The arguments that gives the official version of the alleged Arab invasion do not hold themselves.

 

[Reinaert]

The official version, if you have read the thread there are arguments that show that history also distorts and invents for each other's interests. The arguments that gives the official version of the alleged Arab invasion do not hold themselves.

BlaBla ... Typical for a Mexican Troll.

 

[Regulus]

The official version, if you have read the thread there are arguments that show that history also distorts and invents for each other's interests. The arguments that gives the official version of the alleged Arab invasion do not hold themselves.

Carlitos, you are clearly a good guy. I am not sure as to why the Arab/Berber invasion of Iberia is disputed. The arrival and rule of these dynasties did not result in any big genetic imprint, but they did happen.
Many areas were overrun by Arab armies, including Sicily and other parts of southern Italy for a time. They even held on to a decent piece of Southern France for a period. Iberia at the time was a little over two hundred years past Roman rule, and the Visigoths did not do much to encourage a native Iberian army. The conditions were ripe for any foreign invasion. The Iberians have proven themselves to be tenacious people - the problems they gave Napoleon’s armies prove that much. Spain and Portugal emerged from the years of the Reconquista with a much clearer sense of identity than they had before.

 

[Carlitos]

The term is also wrong to recapture what never recapture if those territories belonged to the supposed conquerors? Assimilation was a choice, not an invasion by force, but the chronicles written about what happened two hundred years after they invented what is now the world takes for good, but it had to happen that way, is what I believe.

 

[Regulus]

The term is also wrong to recapture what never recapture if those territories belonged to the supposed conquerors? Assimilation was a choice, not an invasion by force, but the chronicles written about what happened two hundred years after they invented what is now the world takes for good, but it had to happen that way, is what I believe.

Carlitos,
The absence of contemporary accounts should not be an obstacle.
The assimilation idea does not explain the Arab and Berber dynasties.
Iberia was one of the few places invaded by Moslems in the West in which Christianity did not disappear.(except the Copts) It is effectively gone in North Africa.
I have no problem with you sticking to your position. I just think that you miss much of how these events contributed to the Iberian character.

 

[Carlitos]

^^^

Today we also have on the Spanish throne a dynasty that is not native and past others. If Moorish Spain had relations with the Arab and Muslim world is logical that their dynasties arrived to Spain, traders, artisans, etc, but still not an argument to justify the alleged Arab invasion.

 

[Carlitos]

Thesis writing specialists from what has been written, and scholars who aspire to a university chair to propose theories that dare not deviate from what is accepted by the teachers who reviewed the oppositions court. So must be an ignorant but humble worshiper of common sense, college aspirations, as this writer, who has put on the table glaring misrepresentation of history and culture that has been perpetrated ad matorem glory of Rome of all imperial centralism, whether in Paris, Madrid or Berlin.

 

[Wilhelm]

You're wrong boy and you have to learn about your country.The arabians were in your land around 800 years...that's a fact.

That's wrong boy. First, they were not arabians, but mostly berbers. Second : Only the Kingdom of Granada lasted 800 years. The rest varies a lot : 0 years in Asturias, 20 years in Galice, 150 years in Leon, etc. And third, they were always a very tiny minority, which is why their genetic influence has been so minimal.

 

[Regulus]

That's wrong boy. Only the Kingdom of Granada lasted 800 years. The rest varies a lot. 0 years in Asturias, 20 years in Galice, 200 years in Leon, etc.

That is correct. The Moslem armies never held the entire peninsula.
Very close to half of the peninsula was fully in the hands of the Christian kingdoms by the end of the 11th century.

 

[Melusine]

Belatedly to Lynx post 01-01/11

Bien dicho Lynx, ya bastan los trolls que niegan su historia.

BTW: why does anyone think that the Muslims are of one haplotype ( what ever it may be, E1b, G, R1b, R1a etc ? ) .

If the haplogroup for King Tut, his father , and grandfather turns out to actually be R1b+++, how in the world does anyone in Spain seperate where their R1b hg came from, the Muslim, The Jew, the Goth? Or for that matter anyone else that is hg R1b and matches them (Tut et., al.)within a few thousand years from Europe or anywhere in the "tested" y-dna world.

Note that hg R1b and its subclades takes up about 65% of the results of the "tested) y-dna pie from all over world, but in particular Europe.

To assume that all countries and their people have but one haplotype is to suggest that everyone in a particular country all descend from one hg common ancestor/ancestress , which would mean that there was never any intermarriage with anyone other than with their very own known paternal/maternal family (whole lot of incest going on!).

We do know that the Pharaohs of Egypt married their own half or full sisters, but lets not forget that they "thought that they were gods". Some gods!, take a look at King Tuts medical exam, he was one big inbred mess.

No nation is y-dna "monolithic".

Melusine

 

[Carlitos]

Even researchers who support the invasion theory deemed strange that a handful of Arabs could influence deeply and immediately in 20 million Hispanics. The historian sums up his perplexity Olag?e ironically: "He had then held a formidable mutation, as occurs in the theater a change of decor. Spain, who was Latino, Arabic becomes, being Christian, adopted Islam, to practice monogamy, polygamy becomes, without protest from women. As if he had repeated the act the Holy Spirit of Pentecost, wake up one fine day the Spanish speaking the language of the Hejaz (Arabic). They wear other clothes, have different customs, handling other weapons. The invaders were 25,000. What had become of the Spanish? "

Good evening, I retire to rest, it is too late

 

[hangman]

That is correct. The Moslem armies never held the entire peninsula.
Very close to half of the peninsula was fully in the hands of the Christian kingdoms by the end of the 11th century.

You are right they never held the entire peninsula...they just held 90%. Come on homie...a lot of spaniards look just the same as arabians. By the way we do not account as white people. We're anglos...you aren't.

 

[Drac]

You're wrong boy and you have to learn about your country.The arabians were in your land around 800 years...that's a fact.

The one who needs to learn about the subject before opening your big mouth is you, "boy". The only place the "Arabs" were in Iberia for about 781 years was Granada, in the deep south, and to top it off they were only a small minority of the population, the bulk of Muslims were just native people who converted to Islam:

http://www.archive.org/stream/preachingofislam1896arno#page/124/mode/2up

"These Moriscoes were probably all descendants of the original inhabitants of the country, with little or no admixture of Arab blood; the reasons that may be adduced in support of this statement are too lengthy to be given here; one point only in the evidence may be mentioned, derived from a letter written in 1311, in which it is stated that of the 200,000 Muhammadans then living in the city of Granada, not more than 500 were of Arab descent, all the rest being descendants of converted Spaniards."

 

[Drac]

You are right they never held the entire peninsula...they just held 90%. Come on homie...a lot of spaniards look just the same as arabians. By the way we do not account as white people. We're anglos...you aren't.

Apparently you also need some eyeglasses, because not even most Andalusians, the "darkest" people in Spain, look like "Arabians".