[gothic-l] Re: Gothic christianity

[Tore Gannholm]

>Hi Dirk,
>
>>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.
>>
>Here we definitely disagree since Arianism was just the uniting factor
>  able to mobilize the Goths. I grant you the Roman citizens might be
>less enthusiastic but we talk of Gothic unity. The Romans  were of
>course inclined to follow the pope as is also shown in the  sad
>developement that followa and also continues after the Reconquista
>resulting in the inquisition terror.


As far as I know the Pope does not play any political role until
after the Visigothic invasion of Rome or perhaps only after the
Vandal invasion.

Rome was at that time a desolate town from where the important people had fled.
The Roman Church being more defined in the 6th Century  was because
of the efforts of Gregory I, and those that came after him.

It is only from that time we can really talk about the Catholic
church as a political power.

Had the Franks been Christian earlier they had probably also been
Arians and arianism had been the leading Chrisian religion.

As the Franks converted very late and happened to adopt the Catholic
belief that changed the West European religious world. The sword
decides.

Tore

>
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>That is always a standard thing with "religious" wars being in fact
>political and it goes for all crusades. Still it was, as you admit,
>regarded as an crusade because it threathened the power of the pope.
>
>>
>>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.
>>
>Regarding that the most outstanding enlightened and humanistic and
>tolerant emperor, Frederic II, was raised within the the house of
>d'Hautville you must consider them untimely tolerant.
>
>Best
>Ingemar

--

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/