[gothic-l] Re: Gothic Christianity

Mon Dec 23 14:42:05 UTC 2002

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Ingemar Nordgren 
<ingemar.nordgren at e...>" <ingemar.nordgren at e...> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dirk,
> 
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk at s...>"
> <dirk at s...> wrote:
> > 
> > > As I remarked above the conversion to Catholicism brought the 
> > Gothic > > ethnicity in dissolution and  Gothic landowners made
> often common > sake > > with Roman landowners against the Visigothic
> king and this resulted > in > > internal warfare and a weak kingship
> following the papal dictates > via > > the councils of Toledo. 
> 
> > Hmmm, for me this explanation is too simple. The Visigothic 
elites 
> > had quarreled among each other for many decades prior to their 
> > conversion to Catholicism. They had regularly killed their kings  
and 
> > each other and Arianism was no obstacle to that.
> 
> Then they all the time worked within the Gothic community and for
> Gothic interests. There  were allways other Goths ready to take over
> instead of, as in this case, Romans and later also Arabs. They lost
> the needed unity to stand strong towards outer enemies.

I do not deny that Arianism was a uniting factor for the Visigoths. 
Yet, Visigothic kingship emerged strengthened after the conversion to 
Catholicism. Throughout the 6th century Visigothic kingship was 
rather weak. For a lot of the time they relied on government provided 
by Ostrogothic Italy. Also, the Byzantine colonies in the south 
seemed to pose the most direct threat. The big mistake of the 
Visigoths was that they failed to create an inclusive, integrated 
kingdom that could mobilised all parts of the society. When the 
biggest hurdle to such an integrated realm was removed (i.e. 
Arianism) this was already too late and he subsequent steps failed to 
promote unitity. 

> 
> 
> > There was no longer a remaining Gothic identity 
> > > and so the realm was chrushed by the Arabs bringing back a 
little 
> > > religious  tolerance once again. 
> > 
> > 
> > I see this differently. I think the Visigoths had from the outset 
> > failed to create an integrated strong kingship as did the Franks 
in 
> > Gaul. So when the threat of Arab invasion arrived their were not 
many 
> > willing to fight for this kingdom. Also, you could argue that the 
> > cruel measures against the Jews and other groups had given the 
fading 
> > Visigothic kingdom a new lifeline. These measures brought great 
> > wealth into the coffers of the state, as can be seen by the very 
> > large number of coins in the name of Sisebutus and Suintilha. 
These 
> > kings used the money to reestablish Visigothic control over the 
whole 
> > peninsula, pushing out the last Byzantine strongholds.
> 
> This sounds frightening similar to the confiscation of Jewish 
property
> in Germany  during the Third Reich. I think their motivation was 
> quite similar. It just shows  the aims of the later Visigothic kings
> were very shortsighted and desperate. Had they preserved their Arian
> unity, before the pope got involved, they would have had no need for
> such confiscations and also not have had to face the Jews as a fifth
> collon in alliance with the Arabs. Now this alliance was the only 
way
> for the Jews to be freed. The confiscated property had earlier 
worked
> to help the Gothic economy to flourish by supporting a working
> commercial infrastructure.

I see this differently. I think that the weakness of Visigothic 
kingship in the period since the death of Euric, was to blame for 
those 'desparate' measures at the beginning of the 7th century.  

>  
> 
> > Very true, Vandalic Arianism was not a bit tolerant, which shows 
that 
> > tolerance was not inseperably linked to Arianism and especially 
was 
> > tolerance not linked to Germanic ethnicity. What mattered were 
> > political concerns, which determind the course of action. 
> 
> Arianism is not tolerant in original shape but Germanic Arianism 
was.
> If of political or other reasons may be discussed. The Germanic
> background of fornsiðr gives them  a natural tolerance in religious
> matters anyhow and this is also noticed in Germanic Arianism. Of
> course politics allways override religious tolerance since all
> religion is in the bottom a way to manipulate people for politiical
> reasons by leading/controlling groups.

I just don't believe that we can explain historical event through 
something like 'national traits'. The example of the Vandals and 
Langobards shows that Germanics could be fiercely intolerant when it 
fostered their cause. 

> 
>  
> > Something similar can be 
> > > said later of the Normandic kingdom of Sicily that immediately 
was 
> > > attacked by the pope and finally chrushed in a so called 
crusade in 
> > 1266 > > like the poor Cathars and Albingenses.
> > 
> > Surely, this Normannic kingdom was not Arian, and the war that 
was 
> > waged against it was not really religious. 
> 
> No, I never wrote they were Arians but just a parallel in tolerance.
> Their churches also included Moslem and Mosaic and even Fornsiðr
> symbols, and they practized total freedom of religious belief and
> honoured objective science. Among else the most highstanding medical
> high schools of that time. The pope meant them to be heretics and he
> indeed waged a "crusade" against them.
> 

I don't follow this picture which you are painting of 'naturally 
benevolent and tolerant Germanic pagan/Arians' on the one hand 
and 'naturally malevolent and intolerant Romans/Catholics etc.' on 
the other hand. Historical events cannot be explained by the natural 
inclinations of certain peoples. Instead, it is circumstances, 
institutions, systems etc. which explain events and actions. 

As for Normannic/French involvement in Italy, this was not quite so 
uncontroversial. The rule of the D'Hauteville dynasty was regarded as 
a great burden by the local population of Sicily and southern Italy.

In 1053, the population of southern Italy appealed to the pope to 
send an army for relief. The pope did lead an army and the expedition 
was labled a crusade, but not because religious matters were at 
stake, but in order to garner extra support.

The picture painted of Roger d'Hauteville who arrived in Italy from 
France in 1057 is also not unanimous. Some historians say that he was 
only interested in plunder and booty, while others credit him with 
crudading inspirations against Islam in Sicily. In 1058Ad there was a 
general revolt against the supression of the d'Hauteville family from 
Normandy. However, the d'Hautevilles managed to interfer with papal 
matters and help a pope to the throne who was supportive of them. 
Their conquest of Sicily was greatly resisted by the local 
population, but with the support of papal troops they managed to 
drive the Arabs out. Overall, the d'Hautevilles were not 
naturally 'tolerant' people, but they were mainly mercenaries who 
sought to establish their own principality. They had no material 
interest in supressing other religions and therefore abstained from 
doing so. 

Sorry about this digression.

Dirk 

> 
> Best greetings
> Ingemar
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Ingemar Nordgren, Ph.D.
> Sjögrässtigen 15
> SE-533 73 KÄLLBY
> 46-510-541851

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 