[gothic-l] Re: Visigoths

[dirk at SMRA.CO.UK]

> > Hello Ingemar,
> >
> > you seem to hold the view that conversion from Arianism to
Catholicism
> > was a 'bad' move  for the Visigothic state in Spain. Your argument
> > implies that if the Visigoths had maintained Arianism and thus
avoided
> > integration into the majority Catholic population they would have
> > maintained a higher degreee of ethnic Germanic cohesion and
loyalty to
> > the king, which in turn would have strengthen state power.
> >
> > That is an interesting view, but (without knowing too much about
it) I
> > would tend to see this differently. I thought that the change-over
to
> > Catholicism came in fact too late for the Visigoths. If they had
> > adopted the religion of the majority of the population and allowed
for
> > a higher degree of social integration they could have mobilised
this
> > majority population to rally around the king and the ruling
Visigothic
> > elites. Instead, they continued to alienate virtually all sections
of
> > society, including the Roman Cathothic majority population to some
> > extent but the Jews in particular. The latter may not have been
> > essential for the survival of Visigothic power, but Visigothic
policy
> > towards this group seems to exemplify their overall attitude
towards
> > different ethnic and religious groups.
> >
> > In my view, the adoption of Catholicism may have succeeded in
buying
> > the Visigothic state some time, by for example removing the basis
for
> > religiously motivated attacks by the Frankish kingdom. Thus, I
believe
> > that adopting Catholicism at the end of the 6th century (with some
> > retractions under Witteric in the early 7th century) was
politically
> > the right move, but it came far too late and was not accompanied
by a
> > more general change of attitude.
> >
> > Also, I cannot see why the conditions in the Frankish kingdom were
so
> > different from that in the Visigothic realm that the same
fundamental
> > policy should have produced opposite results. I believe that the
> > Visigothic state was weakened by a high degree of segregation
among
> > different ethinic and religious groups. On top of this came a
> > continuous infighting amongs Visigothic nobles, which I don't
think
> > would have been prevented by the maintaining of Arianism. So when
the
> > Muslim armies attacked in the early 8th century they were only met
by
> > different smaller Visigothic military detachments at different
points
> > and may actually have been very welcomed as saviours from
Visigothic
> > oppression by other parts of the population (most notably the Jews
who
> > knew that their brethren in North Africa were generally
well-treated
> > by the Muslims).
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Dirk
>
>
> Hello again, Dirk,
>
> I do indeed maintain my wiew. Remeber the most crucial thing is the
> dependency of the economy of the Visigothic state on the Jews.


Hello Ingemar and thanks for your reply,

is that really the case that the economy of the Visigothic state
depended so much on the Jewish population? I would have thought that
the Visigothic economy was overwhelmingly based on agriculture, as
indeed most, if not all western European economies at this time were.
Thus, if there was continuity from late anitquity, the Visigothic
economy was likely based on the activity of large agricultural
estates, which generated most of the wealth and which were largely
controlled by the Visigothic elites.

The Jewish population probably dominated trade and especially the
long-distance trade, which satisfied the demand for luxurious
goods that these Visigothic landowners developed. But at any rate,
trade and commerce was probably only a small share of the annual
domestic product of the state. Thus, while Jews may have dominated the
trade sector and were important for the overall economy, I don't think
that the economy depended on their activity in the same way as it
depended on the activity of these agricultural estates.




During
> Arianism the Jews were well treated and had freedom of religion with
> special protection from the kings. Arianism was very tolerant toward
> other faiths (except by the Vandals) but the main point from the
pope to
> get influence in the Visigothic state by converting Reccared was to
> start persecuting the Jews. Hence anti-semitism and Catholicism goes
> hand in hand.


Is there real evidence that Arianism was tolerant, while Catholicism
was accompanied by religious intolerance and anti-semitism in the 6th
and 7th centuries? You already mentioned the Arian Vandals, who were
anything but religiously tolerant but infact notorious for their
persecution of Catholics, while Jews enjoyed royal protection for
example, by the Catholic Ottonen-Emperors in the 10th century.




 This is why the Jews, numerous as they were, were the
most
> important reason the Arabs did win the war and the state was
> extuinguished.


In my view, the Jews may have played a role in the downfall of the
Visigothic state, but I don't think that they played the most
important role. After all their status and probably their posibilities
to exert influence had deteriorated significantly by the time of the
Arab conquest.

Also, what exactly could they have done to undermine Visigothic power?
- providing the Muslims with information? opening the gates of a
fortified town? I still believe - and we may have to agree to disagree
on that - that the Visigothic state was undermined by the alienation
of the majority population from the Visigothic elite, which could not
be overcome fast enough after the adoption of Catholicism. Equally
important was probably the disunity among the Visigothic elites. This
disunity and indeed weakness was already evident throughout most of
the 6th century, but could only be eleviated by some stronger kings
like Luivigild, Reccared, Sisebut and Suinthila. Basically from
Suinthila onwards (died 632AD) repeated ursurpations and continued
infighting weakend royal power from within, making it oblivious to the
dangers that were emerging beyond the Straits of Gibralta.





This is also why the Gothic ethnicity did not last.
Even
> if they had suceeded in keeping the state then it should not have
been
> Gothic but Roman.




I believe that the Visigothic state has always been essentially a
provincial Romano-Iberian entity which included a small Germanic
elite. Thus, I don't think that survival of a Germanic-Visigothic
ethnicity depended on the survival of the Visigothic kingdom.

cheers
Dirk







You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.
Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html

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