Frankish defeat by Muslims = no modern civilisation?

Status
Closed
Nov 2010
7,648
Cornwall
No way! It would be as to say a British speciality for centuries...Swiiss speciality... French Specialistist... Do you want dear Tulius a list of French Civil Wars in the last 500 years? German Speciality... Dutch Speciality....etc etc etc

In fact, not Religious War at all in Spain as yes in France, Germany, Netherland, Britain etc

Moors taught nothing becuse they were semi-barbarian (not even full islamized in 8th Century) so we are talking about Arabs... I guess
Come on Martin, it's not a personal insult just an observation - read up on all the wars between Leon, Castilla, Portugal, Navarra (mostly stolen by Castilla), Portugal, Aragon and the Catalan Counties. Then have a look the Guerra de las Comunidades, the Germanias, Rebellions in Catalonia, Absolutistas v Liberales, the Carlist wars etc etc. The history of Spain is frightening, that's why we like it! Thanks God it's not as boring as British history

Or other 'Spain v Spain': the many Christian-muslim alliances against other Christian-muslim alliances, at one time starring El Cid Campeador.
 
Nov 2010
7,648
Cornwall
So it appears, but my grief has always been with the way the British wrote about this time period, dismissing everything Spanish in favor of the invaders. As I said, my thing is horse history. The royal horses at Seville did not die off the day the Moors arrived.
Yes - if they ever did - as most of them were there already!!

Another interesting aspect is that some of those old historians seem to forget about the 'common people' altogether. Most people give estimates of the Visigothic population being about 10 percent of the total by 711, give or take the odd plague (there were a couple of outbreaks around the time, maybe even accounting for Witiza). So they were in charge.

But we hardly ever consider all the peasants and artisans and general farm workers - often with the status of 'slave' but not really in the emotive sense used by our US friends, they had to live and work on a farm and that had a Gothic (or sometimes Hispano-Roman landlord, basically.

These people just swapped one landlord for another and mostly went with the flow of islam

Tiny Asturias and later Aragon, for example, had minute populations. So either they bred like bacteria or there was, over centuries, a massive invasion in the form of immigration from over the Pyrenees.

So the irony is that, in the final expulsion of the moriscos in 1609-11, some of those people had roots going back pre-Roman. Whereas a lot of 'Christian Spain' by then clearly had roots from abroad.
 
Dec 2015
510
Middle East
The part of Spain that they inhabited had been the last realm of Rome/Constantinople in the West. People give the Moslems too much credit for not destroying what the Romans had built.
Posts like this imply that the Romans were Europeans, which they were not. The Romans considered themselves to be from Anatolia and had nothing to do with Europe.
 

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,843
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts like this imply that the Romans were Europeans, which they were not. The Romans considered themselves to be from Anatolia and had nothing to do with Europe.
Where was the city of Rome where the original Romans came from? In Europe.

Where was the region of Latium where the Latin language, the language of the Romans, was spoken? In Europe.

Where was the peninsula of Italy that contained Latium and Rome? In Europe.

Where was the Iberian Peninsula where the natives were gradually Romanised over centuries? In Europe.

Where was Gaul where the natives were gradually Romanised over centuries? In Europe.

Where was Britain where the natives were gradually Romanised over centuries? In Europe.

Where was the Balkan Peninsula where the natives were gradually Romanised over centuries? In Europe.

In short, Rome where the original Romans came from was in Europe. Italy and the Italians who were the first people to become Romanised were in Europe. Many regions of the Roman Empire were in Europe, and the people of those provinces became Romanised. So Roman culture was largely European, and a significant percentage of the Roman population lived in Europe.

It is true that theRomans had a legend that Trojan refugees from Anatolia came to Italy and mingled with the native population and became SOME of the ancestors of the Romans. Repeat, the Romans had a legend that SOME of their ancestors came from Anatolia centuries before Rome was founded, and intermarried with local Italians over the centuries, so that the group who founded Rome had mixed Anatolian and Italian ancestry.
 
Oct 2013
14,438
Europix
It is true that theRomans had a legend that Trojan refugees from Anatolia came to Italy and mingled with the native population and became SOME of the ancestors of the Romans. Repeat, the Romans had a legend that SOME of their ancestors came from Anatolia centuries before Rome was founded, and intermarried with local Italians over the centuries, so that the group who founded Rome had mixed Anatolian and Italian ancestry.
If You allow me: they came from the Greek city of Troy (and Troy is anything but yet another Greek city), not from "Anatolia".

It isn't just nitpicking: as in any legend, small details can be of a very high significance, charged with symbolism.
 
May 2011
13,941
Navan, Ireland
Posts like this imply that the Romans were Europeans, which they were not. The Romans considered themselves to be from Anatolia and had nothing to do with Europe.
You are aware that Romans comes from the city of Rome --the capital city of Itlay? which is in Europe!

This post doesn't need to imply the Romans were European at all simply because they were.
 
The key word here is 'legend'. There is no reason to think that the migration from Troy ever happened. The Romans simply used legend to insert themselves into the mythological landscape of the Greeks, in the same way that they co-opted, for instance, legends about Hercules into their own foundation mythology. The Romans were thus engaging with Greek culture, not Anatolian culture. I mean, of course they were. Greek culture was very popular in Rome. And again, it's a myth.
 
Aug 2018
439
london
Posts like this imply that the Romans were Europeans, which they were not. The Romans considered themselves to be from Anatolia and had nothing to do with Europe.
The Romans/ Latins were Indo-Europeans, so had a common origin with other Indo-European peoples like the Greeks, Celts, Germans etc in eastern Europe. Italic and Celtic languages are considered to be particularly closely related. This might reflect a common origin in the late Bronze Age Urnfield culture.

 
Last edited:
Dec 2015
510
Middle East
Where was the city of Rome where the original Romans came from? In Europe.
Romans came from Troy. Not Europe. Etruscans came from Anatolia. Not Europe.

Where was the region of Latium where the Latin language, the language of the Romans, was spoken? In Europe.
Are you sure about that?

Where was the Iberian Peninsula where the natives were gradually Romanised over centuries? In Europe.
Natives of the Iberian Peninsula were Romanized becos they had no culture on their own. Hence Romanization is not a source of pride... quite opposite actually..

Where was Gaul where the natives were gradually Romanised over centuries? In Europe.
Natives of the Gaul were Romanized becos they had no culture on their own. Hence Romanization is not a source of pride... quite opposite actually..

Where was Britain where the natives were gradually Romanised over centuries? In Europe.
Natives of Britain were Romanized becos they had no culture on their own. Hence Romanization is not a source of pride... quite opposite actually..

Where was the Balkan Peninsula where the natives were gradually Romanised over centuries? In Europe.
Natives of the Balkan were Romanized becos they had no culture on their own. Hence Romanization is not a source of pride... quite opposite actually..

In short, Rome where the original Romans came from was in Europe.
Nope. The Romans and the Etruscans were from Anatolia.

Italy and the Italians who were the first people to become Romanised were in Europe.
Bcos they had no culture. Anatolian Trojans and not the least the Anatolian Etruscans brought culture and civilization to Italy.

Many regions of the Roman Empire were in Europe
Many many many more were outside Europe. Those outside Europe were centers of civilization not those within.

, and the people of those provinces became Romanised.
Bcos they had no culture.

So Roman culture was largely European,
Not the slightest.

and a significant percentage of the Roman population lived in Europe.
Not quite.
It is true that theRomans had a legend that Trojan refugees from Anatolia came to Italy and mingled with the native population and became SOME of the ancestors of the Romans. Repeat, the Romans had a legend that SOME of their ancestors came from Anatolia centuries before Rome was founded, and intermarried with local Italians over the centuries, so that the group who founded Rome had mixed Anatolian and Italian ancestry.
It is a pity that people have to steal other people's history to feel good about themselves.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions