Use of Gothic language in Spain

[Michael Erwin]

On Jul 25, 2007, at 2:43 AM, faltin2001 wrote:
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Michael Erwin <merwin at ...> wrote:
> >
> > I assume that the Gothic language was more often spoken in 5th-
> > century Aquitaine than in 6th-century Spain. I would expect the
> same
> > density of Gothic place-names in Aquitaine as Swabisk place-names
> in
> > northwestern Spain, and a gradual drop-off of place-name-density
> > between Aquitaine, Catalonia, and central Spain.
> >
> > But what is the known Gothic-place-name-density in Aquitaine? If it
> > is less than the Swabisk place-name-density in northwestern Spain,
> > I'd expect that people have recognized the latter more easily than
> > the former.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> if you read 5 papers on placename evidence you typically get 5
> different opinions. There are really no "Swabisk" (I guess you mean
> Suevic) place names in north-west Spain and as for so called Gothic
> placenames in Aquitaine or Spain there is really very very little that
> is convincing. Take Andalusia and Katalania for example. Some
> linguists argued that these names were derived from names like
> *Vandalusia (i.e. refering to the Vandals) and Gotolonia (refering to
> the Goths). Both derivation are complete nonsense, but they show how
> creative people were with wellknown regional names. Imagine the degree
> of creativity applied to small villages and hamlets.
>
> The Goths in Spain settled not in villages but in an around larger
> towns and garrisons. Only a few high status individuals aquired rustic
> villas and what is most importantly, the people we called Goths in
> Spain didn't speak Gothic, at least not in the 6th and 7th centuries.
> Finally, all this supposed placename evidence assumes that the
> classical sources were reliable about the numbers of Goths in Spain.
> Thus, in the older literature you can find numbers of around 100000 to
> 200000 or even more. Archaeologists and historians like R. Collins now
> think that the number was more likely to be around 30000. I.e. 30000
> people that included perhaps 10000 fighting men. In the early 5th
> century this was an unopposable force in Spain, which is why they
> found easy employment by the Romans, who employed them first to clear
> Spain of other Germanic marauders like the Vandals; who were then
> ordered back to Gaul to deal with the Baugaudic threat in the Loire
> region and who again employed against Sueves and other internal
> opposition. In fact, as Collins sets out nicely this Gothic mercenary
> army was indistinguishable from a proper Roman army. Both were
> Christian, both included many ethnic Germans, but also many non-
> Germanic people; both were Christians, both moved around with their
> wives and children both were similarly dressed and equipped and
> importantly both spoke a Latin-Germanic military pidgin that was
> mutually comprehensible.
>
> Yet, the official Roman armies had almost completely disappeared from
> western Europe by the early 5th century. They had withdrawn from
> Britain in 410, they had left northern Gaul in around 406. The only
> force that could oppose the Vandals, Sueves and Alans near Mainz in
> 406 were the Franks, who acted as Roman federates. The proper Roman
> army, or what was left of it was nowhere to be seen. Where had all the
> soldiers gone who left Britain and Gaul. Many of them propably joined
> new military forces such as the Goths and Franks in Roman employment.
> So again the group we call Visigoths in the 5th century should not be
> mistaken as "a people" let alone "nation" it was a army employed by
> Rome against other armies like the Vandals, Sueves and the Bagaudae.
>
> Cheers,
> Dirk
Hails,

I'm afraid I can't accept the current narrative of the Gothic  
settlement.

An army of 10,000 people would usually require a population base of  
at least 200,000 people, though skewed demographics might reduce this  
to some 100,000 people, which is still far too large for one  
migrating group. A group of 30,000 people, with skewed demographics,  
still could mobilize more than 3,000 people. Modern armies, including  
their logistical tail, as well as local militias, almost never exceed  
5% of the population in the most intense mobilizations.

Faced with dueling impossibilities, we must return to the evidence.  
We can't trust the historical evidence for numbers, and we can't  
trust the place-name evidence without more careful examination, but  
what does the archaeological evidence reveal about the patterns of  
settlement? In many ways, if it is indeed confirmed, settlement-in- 
distinct-communities makes the survival of the language more likely,  
and the creation of place-names less likely, than settlement-in-manors.

Mike.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20070725/1e51ecb6/attachment.htm>