Visigothic Spain without the Arab Conquests
- Thread starter Pachac
- Start date
I'd say the chance is low. Franks had wanted to intervene against the Goths while the Goths were still Arianist, during the reign of Liuvigild... and that was when they had, as allies, the suebic kingdom, Byzantium (which still had a presence in the peninsule at that time), and an inner revolt led by the catholic son of Liuvigild, Hermenegild.
I think i remember at that time the Byzantines had to withdraw because of the death of their emperor, and that shied the Franks away from intervention.
So, unless that a hypothetical king of the Septimania became a vassal of the Frankish king, I think it's very uncertain the Franks would intervene against the Goths. Now... if Charles Martel isn't butterflied away, that will be a different matter
Last edited:
The influence of Basque in Castilian phonetics is a big one. There is the 5 vowels and the aspired initial f just to name two. In comparison, Arabic influence is limited to loan words - over 4000, so it is a big influence, but still no grammar or phonetics that I can think of now.
Well, we agree to disagree I suppose.
I'm at work now so I can't provide actual quotes or books names. Anyway, I remember reading that the land was cultivated by serfs, not slaves. The land was in the hands of old Roman landed families, the Gothic nobility and the Church. Beginning with the reign of Wamba IIRC, the serfs could also be drafted/leveed into the armies of their overlord, in the way Medieval armies were formed, while they had been exempt of taking arms by law up till then.
I picture most of the land going into anarchy, with cities being ruled by local Iberorroman councils/"senates" and maybe one Gothic noble somewhere claiming to be the King of all the Goths if the collapse of the kingdom didn't mean the collapse of the entire Gothic aristocratic class with it. That's what happened after Vouille, more or less. Up to the arrival of Liuvigild Gothic rule was only effective in the strip of land going from Lisbon to Catalonia/Septimania through Toledo.
You wouldn't get, say, the Gothic Kingdom of Baetica or something like that. You would have the claimed same old Kingdom of the Goths, which happens to be in Baetica now. The Gothic nobility didn't feel attached to the land it occupied or the population it ruled over, therefore there weren't "separatists" among them. When a Gothic noble rebelled, he claimed to be the King of all the Goths and claimed all the kingdom for himself, rather than trying to split off the land he or his family owned. I don't know if I'm explaining myself correctly.
Well, technically at the time of the Muslim invasion Roderic had already won, and Agila and his lot had declared loyalty to him - "with a small mouth" as we say over here. When the Muslims landed Roderic was actually campaigning against the Basques (campaign that he had to cancel in order to march south).
I personally doubt Pelayo/Pelagius would ammount to mean something. His figure is as nebulous as it can be and many of the "facts" we know about him are probable later additions in order to make him a link between the Gothic kings and the Medieval kings of Asturias - and thus portray Asturias as the successor of the Visigothic kingdom, if not the Visigothic kingdom restored itself.
I'd say the chance is low. Franks had wanted to intervene against the Goths while the Goths were still Arianist, during the reign of Liuvigild... and that was when they had, as allies, the suebic kingdom, Byzantium (which still had a presence in the peninsule at that time), and an inner revolt led by the catholic son of Liuvigild, Hermenegild.
I think i remember at that time the Byzantines had to withdraw because of the death of their emperor, and that shied the Franks away from intervention.
So, unless that a hypothetical king of the Septimania became a vassal of the Frankish king, I think it's very uncertain the Franks would intervene against the Goths. Now... if Charles Martel isn't butterflied away, that will be a different matter
Well the Franks probably will be interested in the area though; a succesful king of the Franks might be interested to keep the Visigothic kingdom south of the Pyrenees.
It wouldn't have to be intervention, but I can sure see them being interested in conquering Septimania. OTOH substantial conquests south of the Pyrenees look much less likely, unless they will be able to interfere.
I wonder if a Visigothic Spain would be susceptible to the Protestant Reformation or some similar movement. On one hand the King for the most part was always choosen by the Bishop Councils in Toledo. On the other hand a revolting King or noble may use the Reformation as an excuse to breakaway from Church authority and centralize.
Religion : More complicated. Many visigoths seems to have converted before Leuvigild's reign (making the king more prone to defend arianism, in order to prevent a too great alliance between roman elites and gothic ones) and you had many revolts of arian gothic nobles up to the end of VI century.
Slaving economy : While the slavery was certainly more present in roman Spain than roman Gaul and that the creation of germano-roman kingdoms probably increased the proportion of slaves (at least for Marc Bloch, in a posthumous work), what slavery means for the late VII and early VIII centuries?
The councils of Toledo that put in slavery the Jewish population (with probably diverses applications : the simple fact it's a repeted order could mean it wasn't applied beyond a certain point and we know that certain provinces as Septimania were knew for ignoring it), could show a need for slaves : it wasn't really doable to take it by trade (like the Andalusians did OTL).
It forced (that and a parallel evolution of slavery in all Mediterranea) the visigothic slavery to evolve (while being bacwkards of the aforementioned evolution) : based on the late roman division of "humiliores" and "honestiores", many freemen fall into the clientele of some bigwig or land-owner.
Finally you had a single exploited class, depsite being separated in slaves, clients or formal freemen and their different conditions began to balance with slaves being more considered but with clients and freemen being more close of servile condition. Servus would end by defining a semi-free condition rather than enslaved even before the massive use of Slaves as slaves.
Theses serviles classes would be part of the army (some count 10 for 1 freeman in visigothic armies) attached to their patronus by exemple.
Now, for the harsh treatment of spanish servile population (again, by servile, proper slaves + colons + cliens)... The productive infrastructure of visigothic spain suffered from the lasts civil wars and the reign of Vitizza didn't managed to make them recover : for a same production, land owners had to use more slaves AND make them work harder.
You could have an interesting parallel with the late carolingian times where nobles were forced to have the same level of life to "rationalise" and pressure harder on the pesant classes. I don't know if a study was made on this comparison, it could be interesting.
When OTL the Arabs conquered Spain, they let in place many of the gothic (in late era, gothic = ruling class, as franks for Gaul or Lombards for Italy) infrastructures and the situation didn't greatly evolve up to the end of civil war between Muslims and the establishment of Umayyads.
You'll need a era of peace for having the kingdom having infrastructures repaired and re-used.
That said, the absence of "attackable" neighbours would pose an issue sooner or later : Franks and Arabs managed to develop themselves as they were able to compensate a low production ratio in their lands by raiding others (Byzzies, Avars, Saxons).
It could force the visigoths to use earlier their own lands and to have an earlier feudalisation, but it would make them more vulnerable.
Still Visigothic Spain have the potential to reach the same level than Al-Andalus eventually : it's "only" the political and military concerns that are problematics.
Furthermore, the unity of the kingdom would be really important : while pretenders were fighting each others, local nobles (allied and united with roman elites in the VII century) taken a large autonomy (as Theodomir in Murcia).
Simply said, they would have the same issues than Franks, but with less way to get out of it (no raidable neigbours, less demographics, less unity).
At first, the Franks would be likely more interested on Frisians and Saxons. After all the new trade ways pass trough there, and more easily capturable and holdable than mediterranean way : furthermore they wouldn't have to share these with Visigoths, Arabs or Byzantines. (See Dark Ages Economics, of Richard Hodges).
Charles Martel was interested in south because of the Arab presence :
1)They were able to raid as far than Seine valley
2)They crushed Aquitains and made them vulnerable
So, blocking these raids ca. Pyrenees and using the occasion to take Aquitaine was more urgent than going north at this moment.
Without Arabs, Charles Martel will most probably not crossing Loire before a while.
Now, Aquitains would be probably first on line to raid a troubled visigothic kingdom : Septimania knew OTL raids from Franks and Aquitains wouldn't be that more peaceful.
While it probably wouldn't turn into a conquest of the province, it would force the visigoths to use marche-like features with a dux (as they used in the VII century) responsible of the region. With the particularism of this province, it would certainly favour a delegation of the power in the region and weaken the direct royal authority.
My two cents :
-Visigothic kingdom survives but royal authority is diversly applied
-Probably creation of marche-like feature (without direct vassalisation, but collective one) in N-E against Franks, Aquitains and South/South-East against Arab/Berber raids.
-IF a lasting era of peace, possibility to have infrastructures being "repaired" at the cost of an harsher use of servile populations : maybe revolts to follow but without great sucess.
-No conquest of Spain would mean an earlier Berber Revolt, maybe in the 730's.
-As Visigothic Spain have the only fleet worth of mention in western Mediterranea, maybe slavery raids on african coast.
-Persistance of Aquitaine : or alliance with Franks against it, or alliance with Aquitains against a Frankish threat.
The jota appearead in the XVI-XVII century in the spanish language. Before that the x was pronounced more like "ch". It's why the french "Dom Quichotte" (Dom Quishot, more or less) is more correct than english "Dom Quirrrot".
It's probably based on a more popular language, and the Arab origin isn't the obvious reason : by exemple the Asturian dialect, not really the most arab-influenced, know the jota while the Andalusian proncounce it differently.
The reason would be the influence of basque in the XVI, as it doesn't know voiceless sibilant.
Or not. The Church did had an important role in the king's election but the nobility still elected the king (the church being here to not only legitimize but sacre this : the process would be used by the Frankish king after Pippin the Short).
The election of Hroderic, by exemple is obviously due to nobility.
The doesn't make a great deal of sense for the late era. in 710, Gothic meant upper classes, just like Franks or Lombards did for their respective states.
Sure, the "ethnical" distinction was still more present, but more due to the prestige of roman uses in southern Romania (by exemple, with the persistance of roman names like Cassius/Qasi). Nothing really different from what existed in southern Gaul by exemple
12% of Goths roughly correspond to the union between romans and germans in the early VIII.
Wait. 10 Millions in Spain in 710? As all (not almost all, but all) the sources I could find seems to indicate they should be lucky if they had 3.5 Millions at this era, could I ask where this quote is taken off?
No more than others.
The "gothic disease" is mainly a mockery from franks. Actually the Visigothic kingdom was relativly stable regarding this : nothing comparable to the cluedocracy of Late Roman Empire.
While the 50 last years of the kingdom were harsh, particularly due to civil wars, it's comparable to what happened in Francia : wars of Peppin II, war of sucession won by Charles Martel, wars of Peppin III, revolts during Charlemagne, etc.
That said, you have historical figures, that if our knowledge about them is vague. Not only Pelayo, but Pedro (duke of Cantabria) as well.
While we couldn't take genuily the facts given by the later christian sources (while there's nothing really convicing showing they are forgeries), the archeological digs in Europe Mounts are giving some interesting toughts : presence of fortifications (towers and digs) estimated to be from the end of VII or beggining of VIII that could support the theory of a common authority (more or less like Odon did in Ariege's valley in the 720's, for comparing this use).
Now, if you're saying that the origin of Pelayo, the details about battles, the resons of it, in fact all the hagiographic part is dubious : I agree totally. The northern kings NEEDED a legitimisation as they were going to expand their authority on almost all the highlands. What happen after is so vague, compared to the details given about him that being careful is the first thing to do.
That said, if the story about him being hostage at Corduba in the 710's is true (I'm sure we're agreeing that rejecting the christian accounts for the sake of it is a extreme reaction.), being used such could indicate a proximity to power or part of linage having it. (Not to sue some royal origin out of the hat, but local nobility more).
Then, for the ATL that we're interested on, Pelaio could play a secondary role as one of the chiefs of "asturians" (fail to find better word : highlanders maybe?) as Pedro.